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: Judge. Clarence Jones appeals r section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004); however, we find no error in the imposition of that cost. See Griffin v. State, 980 So.2d 1035 (Fla.2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm Jones’s convictions Options: A. holding that the ex post facto clause has no application to deportation B. holding that the retroactive application of a statute authorizing the assessment of a cost to a defendant who committed the felony pri or to the statutes enactment did not violate ex post facto laws C. holding that retroactive application of mvra does not violate the ex post facto clause because restitution is not a criminal punishment D. holding retroactive application of idra would violate the ex post facto clause E. holding that retroactive application of ohios residency restriction statute violates the federal ex post facto clause

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the retroactive application of a statute authorizing the assessment of a cost to a defendant who committed the felony pri or to the statutes enactment did not violate ex post facto laws
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 255 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d) (finding waiver when the defendant made a subsequent request under oath for the appointment of counsel); Douglas v. State, No. 14-00-01226-CR, 2002 WL 1988163, at *9 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 29, 2002, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) (finding waiver when the defendant "steadfastly refused to waive his right to counsel, saying over and over that he wanted ‘a lawyer to consult with’ ”); Garrett v. State, 998 S.W.2d 307, 316-17 (Tex. App.- Cir. 1976) ("A criminal defendant may be asked, in the interest of orderly procedures, to choose between waiver and another course of action as long as the choice presented to him is not constitutionally offensive.”); see Smith v. Grams, 565 F.3d 1037, 1045-46 (7th Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>); Pazden v. Maurer, 424 F.3d 303, 319 (3d Cir. Options: A. holding that under the sixth amendment a criminal defendant may waive his right to counsel if that waiver is knowing intelligent and voluntary B. holding waiver of right to counsel at sentencing not voluntary when trial court tried to dissuade discharge of counsel defendant believed incompetent for the waiver to be voluntary the trial court must inquire into the reasons for the defendants dissatisfaction with his counsel to ensure that the defendant is not exercising a choice between incompetent or unprepared counsel and appearing pro se C. recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary D. holding a waiver of a substantial constitutional right must be a voluntary knowing and intelligent act E. holding waiver of right to counsel not voluntary and knowing when defendant terminated counsel and requested another attorney but the trial court would allow delay and appointment only upon waiver of speedy trial right

assistant: The best answer is E. holding waiver of right to counsel not voluntary and knowing when defendant terminated counsel and requested another attorney but the trial court would allow delay and appointment only upon waiver of speedy trial right
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 fundamental individual and civil rights. But “punishment” must be labeled what it is, and imposed only in compliance with the time-honored constitutional guarantees that legitimate the exercise of that practice. Central among these guarantees is the prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto laws. As Article 120 inflicts a greater punishment upon convicted felons than the law annexed to their crimes when committed, see Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798), I would invalidate its retroactive application. Thus, I would reverse the decision of the district court as to the ex post facto claim, and order that judgment be entered for plaintiffs. For the reasons herein stated, I respectfully dissent. 25 . Compare Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. Governor of Fla., 353 F.3d 1287 Options: A. holding that teague applies only to procedural rules and not to decisions of the supreme court deciding the meaning of criminal statutes B. holding such statutes are not analogous statutes of limitation for erisa purposes C. holding that 2 of the vra applies to felon disenfranchisement statutes D. holding that the law of the state of incorporation applies E. holding that the statutes abrogated the common law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 2 of the vra applies to felon disenfranchisement statutes
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: copy , store or otherwise access or use any information , including personally identifiable information about any other member , contained on the airbnb platform in any way that is inconsistent with airbnb 's privacy policy or these terms or that otherwise violates the privacy rights of members or third parties ;

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.’ ” McKinnis v. Williams, No. 00 Civ. 8357(RWS), 2001 WL 873078, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2001); Hayes v. N.Y.S. D.O.C. Officers, No. 97 Civ. 7383(MBM), 1998 WL 901730, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 1998) (“Had plaintiff pursued his administrative remedies after the effective date of the PLRA, when doing so became mandatory, there would be no question that the statute of limitations would have been tolled during the pen-dency of those proceedings.”); see also Dixon v. Page, 291 F.3d 485, 490 (7th Cir.2002) (“[T]he time spent in exhausting administrative remedies is tolled for purposes of limitations on filing a federal complaint.”); Johnson v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519, 521 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). But cf. Thomas v. Henry, No. 02 Civ. Options: A. holding that the question whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction and therefore may be assumed without being decided B. holding that where congress does not establish a statute of limitations applicable to a federal cause of action a void which is commonplace in federal statutory law this court has repeatedly borrowed the state law of limitations governing an analogous cause of action C. holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim D. holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations E. holding tjhere can be no question that a federal court applying illinois law similar to ny cplr 204a must toll the statute of limitations if a statutory prohibition exists that prevents a plaintiffs cause of action and noting the fifth and sixth circuits agree that the plra is such a prohibition

assistant: The best answer is E. holding tjhere can be no question that a federal court applying illinois law similar to ny cplr 204a must toll the statute of limitations if a statutory prohibition exists that prevents a plaintiffs cause of action and noting the fifth and sixth circuits agree that the plra is such a prohibition
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: grant of a writ of habe-as corpus is AFFIRMED. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to order Eddleman’s release unless the state grants Eddleman a new trial within a reasonable period. 1 . Consider the following exchange during the cross-examination of George Sebastian Pitian: Q. Would the fact that this man confessed to doing what he thought was a shooting of a gang member, but by mistake hit Joane Georgescu, would that kind of change your mind about that? A. Yeah. 2 . We agree with our statement in Nevers that the set of errors that are not harmless under the Brecht standard is a lesser included subset of the set of errors that are not harmless under the standard of Chapman plus AEDPA deference. See Nevers, 169 F.3d at 371-72; accord Polk, 401 F.3d at 264-66 (<HOLDING>); Robertson, 324 F.3d at 307 n. 5 (noting that Options: A. holding that the state court unreasonably applied chapman but that the error was not prejudicial under brecht B. holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error C. holding that chapman mandates harmless error analysis of griffin error D. holding that a federal habeas court performing a harmless error inquiry on collateral review must employ the standard for harmless error articulated in brecht even if the state courts have never reviewed the error on direct appeal E. recognizing that the state court need not explicitly rely on chapman to warrant federal review under brecht but not deciding the issue because the error was also harmless under chapman

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the state court unreasonably applied chapman but that the error was not prejudicial under brecht
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: proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bres-ler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable. Indeed, the record is completely devoid of evidence that anyone in the city of Greenbelt or anywhere else thought Bresler had been charged with a crime. Id. at 14-15, 90 S.Ct. 1537 (footnote omitted). ¶ 14 Similarly in the present case, we hold that the use of the term “patronage” cannot imply to the reader that the Rushes were gui 355, 358 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Compare West v. Thomson Newspapers, et al., Options: A. holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se B. holding that news broadcast which fell within several of the historical categories for per se defamation was not defamatory per se where plaintiffs identity was not shown on its face C. holding that a newspaper article which suggested that suozzi received political favoritism from his brother the mayor but did not contain a clear assertion that a crime had been committed was not defamatory and could not constitute libel per se D. holding statements regarding plaintiffs unsatisfactory job performance not defamatory per se E. holding that statements that plaintiff had had an extramarital affair were defamatory per se

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a newspaper article which suggested that suozzi received political favoritism from his brother the mayor but did not contain a clear assertion that a crime had been committed was not defamatory and could not constitute libel per se
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: penalties on a defendant for the same underlying conduct. III. Increased Sentence on Resentenc-ing Weingarten raises a number of additional challenges to his new sentence, all predicated on the notion that, even though his original sentence and new sentence both amounted to an effective sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment, the new sen tence should nevertheless be treated as an increased sentence. The government does not dispute that Weingarten’s new sentence should be treated as more severe. Under the “remainder aggregate” analysis outlined in United States v. Markus, when reviewing a sentence imposed on remand after one or more counts have been reversed, we compare the defendant’s new sentence to his previous sentence without the vacated count(s). 603 F.2d 409, 413 (2d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d Options: A. recognizing with approval the practice following vacatur of some counts of conviction on appeal of increasing the defendants sentence on remaining counts to yield an aggregate sentence equal to the original aggregate imposed B. holding that it was not reversible error to continue polling the remaining jurors on all counts when the disputed count was later dismissed C. recognizing constitutional right to be present when sentence is imposed D. holding that to compare severity of sentences the proper procedure is first to disregard the sentence originally imposed on the dismissed count and then compare the total remaining sentence imposed on the remaining counts with the petitioners present position E. holding that states appeal of trial courts dismissal of first count in a four count indictment under cj 12302cl was not ripe until final judgment on the remaining counts pled in the guilty plea and noting that upon imposition of the sentences on the remaining counts the situation was ripe for the state to appeal or to perfect its earlier attempt to appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that to compare severity of sentences the proper procedure is first to disregard the sentence originally imposed on the dismissed count and then compare the total remaining sentence imposed on the remaining counts with the petitioners present position
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: Unless otherwise agreed upon by the Parties, after the Regulatory Transfer Date, Takeda shall be the lead party for all regulatory-related activities with respect to such Products and TBIL shall not communicate or correspond with any Regulatory Authority with respect to such Products without the prior written consent of Takeda unless such communication or correspondence is required to comply with Applicable Laws, in which case TBIL shall, to the extent practicable, notify Takeda and obtain Takeda’s written consent prior to engaging in such communication or submitting such correspondence; provided that , upon TBIL’s request, Takeda shall: (i) provide TBIL with drafts of all material Regulatory Materials reasonably in advance of submission to a Regulatory Authority for TBIL’s review and comment and reasonably consider incorporating TBIL’s reasonable comments in connection therewith, (ii) provide TBIL with a copy, in electronic form if reasonably practicable, of all material Regulatory Materials submitted to or received from a Regulatory Authority, promptly, but in no event later than [***] Business Days after receipt or submission thereof, and (iii) notify TBIL reasonably prior to any material meetings and material conferences related to the Products with Regulatory Authorities and unless precluded by Applicable Law, upon TBIL’s request, TBIL may attend and observe (and, upon Takeda’s request or written consent, which may be withheld or granted at Takeda’s sole discretion, participate in) such meetings; provided that , unless otherwise agreed to by Takeda, no more than [***] of TBIL’s employees or its designees may attend a meeting with the FDA and no more than [***] of TBIL’s employees or its designees may attend a meeting with any other Regulatory Authority, and (iv) upon TBIL’s request, provide TBIL with all reports and minutes from all such material meetings and conferences.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). A state court’s adjudication only results in an “un reasonable application” of clearly established federal law when “the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495. This is a difficult standard for any petitioner to meet. Indeed, the Supreme Court has been increasingly vigorous in enforcing AEDPA’s standards. See, e.g., Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011) (<HOLDING>). It is not enough for us to determine that the Options: A. recognizing that pleadings filed in federal court while the federal court has jurisdiction become part of the state court record on remand B. holding that the federal habeas corpus court could reach the merits of a due process claim even though there was no contemporaneous objection in state court trial where the state habeas corpus court reached the merits rather than rely on the procedural default defense C. holding that review under 2254d1 is limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits rejecting the petitioners claim that the federal habeas court could consider evidence introduced in an evidentiary hearing D. holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court E. holding that aedpa only applies where the state court adjudicated the constitutional issue on the merits

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event Grantee breaches any of the confidentiality, non-solicitation or non-compete covenants set forth in the Employment Agreement, if applicable, the Market Stock Units shall immediately thereupon expire and be forfeited, and the Company shall be entitled to seek other appropriate remedies it may have available in connection with such breach.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The obligations of the parties pursuant to Sections 3(g), 5 through 9, and 12, as applicable, shall survive the Executive’s Termination of Employment hereunder for the period designated under each of those respective sections.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: former reserve employees in United Steelworkers, and because the Trustee’s claims mirror the claims brought by the non-settling former reserve employees in Warner. The PBGC and Ricke argue that only the Section 4049 Trustee may maintain an action for unfunded non-guaranteed pension benefits under SEPPAA, and that the releases signed in connection with the settlement of United Steelworkers are, therefore, invalid. As ERISA has evolved, an individual’s right to sue for unfunded non-guaranteed pension benefits has gone through a series of transformations. Before the passage of SEPPAA, courts had determined that individuals could bring actions for such benefits. See Murphy v. Heppenstall Co., 635 F.2d 233, 233 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1142, 102 S.Ct. 999, 71 L.Ed.2d 293 (1982) (<HOLDING>); accord United Steelworkers of Am. v. North Options: A. holding that it is not inconsistent with the statutory scheme to permit employees to recover directly from the employer nonguaranteed pension benefits B. holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits C. holding that an employees protected interest in a pension vested before he or she became eligible to collect the pension D. holding that an antiassignment clause in a pension plan is valid under 541c2 and that the pension benefits thus do not become property of the estate and may not be made subject to a pay order under section 1325c E. holding that the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that it is not inconsistent with the statutory scheme to permit employees to recover directly from the employer nonguaranteed pension 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 60(b)(4), which provides: “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (4) the judgment is void.” She contends that Rule 60(b)(4) applies to the BAP because of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024, which states that “Rule 60 F.R.Civ.P. applies in cases under the [Bankruptcy] Code” except in enumerated circumstances not present here. We need not determine whether Rule 60 applies to BAP proceedings, because our analysis is essentially the same if we simply review Evans’s motion to the BAP as a motion to recall the mandate. Federal courts have an inherent power to recall their mandates. See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 549, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998) (<HOLDING>); 16 Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Options: A. recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals B. recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions on parties C. recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants D. recognizing courts inherent power to issue subpoenas E. recognizing the inherent power of courts to ensure an adversarial proceeding

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals
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 divorce judgment, i.e., that a jurisdictional defect appeared on the face of the record. See Walker, supra. Thus, we reject any contention that the trial court lacked any evidence on which to base its finding that the father had failed to properly register the divorce judgment. The father next argues that the trial court, for a variety of reasons, erred in setting aside the 2006 modification judgment; however, the father appealed only the March 28, 2011, judgment, which dismissed only the petition for a rule nisi and the petition to modify the divorce judgment filed on August 6, 2009. We, therefore, cannot consider any arguments addressed toward the propriety of the judgment setting aside the 2006 modification judgment. See Landry v. Landry, 42 So.Sd 755, 757-58 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, because the trial court relied Options: A. holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment B. holding that notice indicating the appeal was from summary judgment order was insufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction to reach appellants challenge to earlier order compelling arbitration C. recognizing that an appellants failure to properly file a notice of appeal as to a particular judgment prevents an appellate court from obtaining jurisdiction to review that judgment D. holding that when an appeal is properly taken from an underlying judgment the court of appeals has discretion to review a subsequent order denying a motion to vacate E. holding the trial court was without authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the amount of the judgment required the appellant to file an application for discretionary review

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that an appellants failure to properly file a notice of appeal as to a particular judgment prevents an appellate court from obtaining jurisdiction to review that 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: To the extent provided by the terms of an Award Agreement and subject to the discretion of the Committee, the Participant may satisfy any federal, state or local tax withholding obligation relating to the exercise or acquisition of Common Stock under an Award by any of the following means (in addition to the Company’s right to withhold from any compensation paid to the Participant by the Company) or by a combination of such means: (a) tendering a cash payment; (b) authorizing the Company to withhold Common Shares from the Common Shares otherwise issuable to the Participant as a result of the exercise or acquisition of Common Shares under the Award, provided, however, that no Common Shares are withheld with a value exceeding the amount of tax required to be withheld by law or such other greater amount up to the maximum statutory rate under applicable law, as applicable to such Participant, if such other greater amount would not result in adverse financial accounting treatment, as determined by the Committee (including in connection with the effectiveness of FASB Accounting Standards Update 2016-09); or (c) delivering to the Company previously owned and unencumbered Common Shares. The Company shall not be required to issue any Common Shares or make any cash payment under the Plan until such obligations are satisfied.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the provisions of Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 below, if the Grantee terminates employment with the Company for any reason (including upon a termination for Cause), any unvested Units will be canceled and forfeited as of the date of Grantee’s termination of employment. In other words, the Grantee must be employed by the Company on the relevant Vesting Date to receive any payment with respect to the Units that are scheduled to vest on such Vesting Date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Seller shall (and shall cause the Servicer to), at its expense, take all action necessary or reasonably desirable to establish and maintain a valid and enforceable ownership or security interest in the Support Assets, and a first priority perfected security interest in the Support Assets, in each case free and clear of any Adverse Claim (other than Permitted Adverse Claims), in favor of the Administrative Agent (on behalf of the Secured Parties), including taking such action to perfect, protect or more fully evidence the security interest of the Administrative Agent (on behalf of the Secured Parties) as the Administrative Agent or any Secured Party may reasonably request. In order to evidence the security interests of the Administrative Agent under this Agreement, the Seller shall, from time to time take such action, or execute and deliver such instruments as may be necessary (including, without limitation, such actions as are reasonably requested by the Administrative Agent) to maintain and perfect, as a first-priority interest, the Administrative Agent’s security interest in the Receivables, Related Security and Collections (subject to Permitted Adverse Claims). The Seller shall, from time to time and within the time limits established by law, prepare and present to the Administrative Agent for the Administrative Agent’s authorization and approval, all financing statements, amendments, continuations or initial financing statements in lieu of a continuation statement, or other filings necessary to continue, maintain and perfect the Administrative Agent’s security interest as a first-priority interest (subject to Permitted Adverse Claims). The Administrative Agent’s approval of such filings shall authorize the Seller to file such financing statements under the UCC without the signature of the Seller, any Originator or the Administrative Agent where allowed by Applicable Law. Notwithstanding anything else in the Transaction Documents to the contrary, the Seller shall not have any authority to file a termination, partial termination, release, partial release, or any amendment that deletes the name of a debtor or excludes Support Assets of any such financing statements filed in connection with the Transaction Documents, without the prior written consent of the Administrative Agent. The Seller authorizes the Administrative Agent to file financing statements, continuation statements and amendments thereto and assignments thereof, relating to the Receivables, the Related Security, the related Contracts, Collections with respect thereto and the other Support Assets without the signature of the Seller. A photocopy or other reproduction of this Agreement shall be sufficient as a financing statement where permitted by law.

assistant: Further Assurances
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 or other communications to be made or given pursuant to this Guaranty shall be sufficient if made or given as provided in Section 11.6 of the Credit Agreement; or at such other addresses as directed by any of such parties to the others, as applicable, in compliance with this paragraph.

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: until April 1998 the deadline for serious and severe nonattainment areas to submit their attainment demonstrations. See 64 Fed.Reg. at 70,398. Because not all SIPs contain MVEBs and because of the delay in the submission and approval of attainment demonstrations that do contain such budgets, it is entirely possible that some nonattainment areas subject to the conformity requirements may not have in place an approved SIP containing a MVEB. While the Clean Air Act generally contemplates that conformity determinations will be made by reference to approved SIPs, the Act simply does not address how conformity determinations should be made in the absence of an approved SIP with an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget. See Environmental Def. Fund v. EPA, 167 F.3d 641, 650 (D.C.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). It therefore cannot be said that the EPA’s Options: A. holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling B. recognizing that use of the then approved shotgun instruction would be improper if it coerced jury into agreement or unduly hastened their consideration C. recognizing that language approved by the court may raise questions if incorporated in a jury instruction in a case with different facts D. holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle E. recognizing that section 7506 does not dictate how conformity should be determined if no approved sip exists or if the approved sip contains no adequate motor vehicle emissions budget

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that section 7506 does not dictate how conformity should be determined if no approved sip exists or if the approved sip contains no adequate motor vehicle emissions budget
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 accessed or downloaded the app from the apple store , then you agree to use the app only : ( a ) on an apple-branded product or device that runs ios ( apple 's proprietary operating system software ) ; and ( b ) as permitted by the `` usage rules '' set forth in the apple store terms of service .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: claimant was injured while exiting an elevator in a parking garage which was not owned or maintained by her employer. However, the claimant’s employer instructed her to park in certain designated spaces which it leased in the garage. Because the employer leased the parking spaces from the garage operator and presumably could pressure the garage operator to keep the facility in a safe condition, Pierson held that there was “sufficient indicia of em ployer control to support the ... conclusion that the [employer] should be responsible for the effects of an injury to an employee which occurred in the garage.” 987 S.W.2d at 318. Since the claimant was utilizing a reasonable means to walk from her parking space to her employer when she fell, she zona, 142 Ariz. 501, 690 P.2d 802 (App.1984)(<HOLDING>); Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § Options: A. holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees B. holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs C. holding that claimant was entitled to workers compensation because he was injured in a parking lot which was leased by his employer D. holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot E. holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot
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 Default or Event of Default shall exist at the time of, or result from, such funding or issuance , or, in the case of a Borrowing of Loans under an Incremental FILO Facility, no Event of Default shall exist at the time of, or result from, such Borrowing only in the case of, and to the extent of, a deemed Borrowing of Loans under an Incremental FILO Facility upon the inception of any Incremental FILO Facility at a time when Loans are then outstanding that have been borrowed in reliance on a Borrowing Base including assets of the same type as the FILO Borrowing Base. .

assistant: No Defaults
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The terms, conditions, and restrictions applicable to this Award are specified in the Plan, this Award Agreement, including Exhibit A - Award Rules and Exhibit B - Section 280G Rules , and the prospectus dated January 2017 and any applicable prospectus supplement (together, the “ Prospectus ”). The terms, conditions and restrictions in the Plan and Prospectus include, but are not limited to, provisions relating to amendment, vesting, cancellation, and settlement, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference into this Award Agreement to the extent not otherwise set forth herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Headings are given to the Sections and subsections of the Schedule B solely as a convenience to facilitate reference. Such headings shall not be deemed in any way material or relevant to the construction or interpretation of the Certificate or any provision thereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment, when delivered hereunder, will have been duly executed and delivered by each Loan Party that is party hereto. This Amendment constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of such Loan Party, enforceable against such Loan Party that is party hereto in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that the enforceability hereof may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or other similar laws generally affecting creditors’ rights and by equitable principles (regardless of whether enforcement is sought in equity or at law).

assistant: Binding Effects
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 indistinctiveness of the trade dress. See id. at 1536. First, Merisant has established that its mark has acquired secondary meaning, for it is undisputed that Equal and NutraSweet have devoted substantial resources to the advertising and promotion of Equal, and that as a consequence, the NutraSweet trademarks and trade dress are well known to the purchasing public throughout the United States. Also undisputed is the fact that sweeteners bearing the Equal and NutraSweet trademarks and the Equal trade dress have been and are now recognized by the public and in the food industry as originating from a single source. See Remcraft Lighting Products, Inc. v. Maxim Lighting, Inc., 706 F.Supp. 855, 858 (S.D.Fla.1989) (citing Isaly Company v. Kraft, Inc., 619 F.Supp. 983, 990 (M.D.Fla.1985) (<HOLDING>)). See also Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Company, Options: A. holding that the ordinary concept of use as applied in determining the existence of a nonconforming use must yield to the realities of the business in question and the nature of its operations B. holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark C. holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion D. holding that the trier of fact must consider the length of time and manner of use of trade dress the nature and extent of its use and efforts made in order to promote a conscious connection in the publics mind between the mark and the particular source of origin E. recognizing the need to balance the states interest in fulfilling its responsibilities to the public the extent to which the speech in question involves a matter of public concern and the manner time place and context of the speech

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the trier of fact must consider the length of time and manner of use of trade dress the nature and extent of its use and efforts made in order to promote a conscious connection in the publics mind between the mark and the particular source of origin
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: vehicle cases under the [Policitical Subdivisions Tort Claim] Act has been the involvement of the motor vehicles as motor vehicles in accidents. In no cited case has a waiver to immunity been found where the plaintiff has alleged the sole involvement of the governmental motor vehicle lay in carrying a passenger to an area for discharge that the governmental agency knew or should have known was unsafe. The Complaint alleges the bus driver did nothing wrong other than allowing [appellant] to leave the bus in a certain place. The Comp ne whether Paula Jo Lehman continued to be an “occupant” of the bus after she had alighted from the bus and was crossing the street behind the bus to get to her school. See Walker v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 323 Pa.Super. 427, 470 A.2d 993 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Assuming, without deciding, that she was no Options: A. holding port authority required to provide basic loss benefits under section 204a4 of nofault act regardless of whether passenger continued to be occupant as bus was involved in an accident when passenger struck by passing vehicle after alighting from bus B. holding police incident to arrest of occupant of automobile may search entire passenger compartment of vehicle C. holding that ttcas motorvehicle waiver did not apply to claim whose gravamen was that bus drivers failure to supervise the public by for example failing to supervise tortfeasor passenger and failing to return to pick up victim passenger allowed tortfeasor who had threatened victim on bus to assault victim after both had exited D. holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle E. holding that fourth amendment rights of a passenger of a legally stopped vehicle were not violated by police officers instruction that he remain inside the vehicle during traffic stop after passenger repeatedly tried to exit

assistant: The best answer is A. holding port authority required to provide basic loss benefits under section 204a4 of nofault act regardless of whether passenger continued to be occupant as bus was involved in an accident when passenger struck by passing vehicle after alighting from bus
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In consideration of Executive’s full and faithful satisfaction of Executive’s duties under this Agreement, the Company agrees to pay to Executive an annual Base Salary in the amount of $1,000,000.00 (One-Million Dollars) payable in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll schedule, subject to customary employee contributions to any health, welfare and/or retirement programs in which Executive is enrolled. The Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board shall, no less frequently than annually, review the Executive’s Base Salary and, in its sole discretion, may increase the Executive’s Base Salary. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Executive, the Base Salary shall not be reduced from the amount previously in effect. Upon any such increase, the increased amount shall thereafter be deemed to be the Base Salary for purposes of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: its impartiality would be suspect.”)). 2. Application of Rational Basis Review to Justifications Proffered by Congress. The Court has already addressed the four interests proffered by Congress during the passage of DOMA and found them not to be substantially related to an important governmental objective. Similarly, under the rational basis review, the Court finds that none of Congress’ proffered justifications constitute a rational relation in furtherance of some legitimate governmental end. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 631, 116 S.Ct. 1620 (citing Heller, 509 U.S. at 319-320, 113 S.Ct. 2637). Specifically, the Court finds that Congress’ justification of promoting traditional notions of morality does not satisfy rational basis scrutiny. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 582, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (<HOLDING>) Also, if the denial of benefits is designed to Options: A. holding that moral disapproval of homosexuals like a bare desire to harm the group is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the equal protection clause B. holding that the impact fee there imposed did not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment using the rational basis test we discuss here C. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause D. holding that because lawrence declined to address equal protection it did not disturb philips equal protection ruling under the rational basis standard of review E. holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that moral disapproval of homosexuals like a bare desire to harm the group is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the equal protection 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In accepting the Performance Shares grant, you are deemed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal or state courts of the State of Tennessee of the United States of America to resolve any and all issues that may arise out of or relate to the Performance Shares and the Performance Shares Notice.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: as an alternative to arbitration , if permitted by your local `` small claims '' court 's rules , you may bring your dispute in your local `` small claims '' court , as long as the matter advances on an individual ( non-class ) basis .

assistant: None