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: commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.” Id. Only certain types of changes in the rules of evidence fall into this fourth category. There is a violation under this category when laws that require a minimum type or amount of evidence for conviction are changed by eliminating a type of evidence or decreasing the amount of evidence needed for conviction. However, an ex post facto problem does not arise for a law that “does nothing more than admit evidence of a particular kind in a criminal case ... which was not admissible under the rules of evidence as enforced by judicial decisions at the time the offense was committed.” Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U.S. 380, 387, 18 S.Ct. 922, 43 L.Ed. 204 (1898); see Hopt v. People, 110 U.S. 574, 589, 4 S.Ct. 202, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884) (<HOLDING>). While the decision in Payne allowed victim Options: A. holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause B. holding that the ex post facto clause has no application to deportation C. holding that state work release regulation was not an ex post facto law D. holding that state statutory bans against employment of convicted felons in certain jobs did not impose punishment under ex post facto clause E. holding no ex post facto violation for a law allowing for convicted felons to testify as competent witnesses because the law did not affect the quantity or the degree of proof necessary to establish guilt

assistant: The best answer is E. holding no ex post facto violation for a law allowing for convicted felons to testify as competent witnesses because the law did not affect the quantity or the degree of proof necessary to establish guilt
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: not assert cause of action under § 1983 to enforce 42 U.S.C. § 1437(e) because providing decent and safe housing was a condition of federal funds and did not confer enforceable rights). As the Supreme Court has made clear, statutory language that merely benefits putative plaintiffs without specific rights-creating language is insufficient to confer a new federal right enforceable under § 1983. Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 283, 122 S.Ct. 2268. In addition, the Court has observed that “statutes that focus on the person regulated rather than the individuals protected create ‘no implication of an intention to confer rights on a particular class of persons.’ ” Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511; See also Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 691, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Gonzaga highlighted the type of Options: A. recognizing that title vi of the civil rights act of 1964 and title ix of the educational amendments of 1972 created individual federal rights because those statutes were phrased with an unmistakable focus on the benefitted class B. holding that title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 provides the exclusive remedy for claims of employment discrimination by federal agencies C. holding that because the proper defendant in a title vi case is an entity rather than an individual plaintiff could not be sued in his individual capacity under title vi D. holding there is no private right of action to enforce disparateimpact regulations brought under title vi of the civil rights act of 1964 in part because of the enforcement scheme congress provided in that statute E. holding that congress intended for idea to be interpreted consistent with fee provisions of statutes such as title vii of the civil rights act of 1964

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that title vi of the civil rights act of 1964 and title ix of the educational amendments of 1972 created individual federal rights because those statutes were phrased with an unmistakable focus on the benefitted class
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 Purchaser, severally and not jointly with the other Purchasers, covenants that neither it nor any Affiliate acting on its behalf or pursuant to any understanding with it will execute any purchases or sales, including Short Sales of any of the Company’s securities during the period commencing with the execution of this Agreement and ending at such time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.3. Each Purchaser, severally and not jointly with the other Purchasers, covenants that until such time as the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are publicly disclosed by the Company pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.3, such Purchaser will maintain the confidentiality of the existence and terms of this transaction and the information included in the Disclosure Schedules. N otwithstanding the foregoing, and notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, the Company expressly acknowledges and agrees that (i) no Purchaser makes any representation, warranty or covenant hereby that it will not engage in effecting transactions in any securities of the Company after the time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.3, (ii) no Purchaser shall be restricted or prohibited from effecting any transactions in any securities of the Company in accordance with applicable securities laws from and after the time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.3 and (iii) no Purchaser shall have any duty of confidentiality or duty not to trade in the securities of the Company to the Company or its Subsidiaries after the issuance of the initial press release as described in Section 4.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a Purchaser that is a multi-managed investment vehicle whereby separate portfolio managers manage separate portions of such Purchaser’s assets and the portfolio managers have no direct knowledge of the investment decisions made by the portfolio managers managing other portions of such Purchaser’s assets, the covenant set forth above shall only apply with respect to the portion of assets managed by the portfolio manager that made the investment decision to purchase the Shares covered by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: discussed by the supreme court in both Heggs and Maddox. As a result of appellant’s failure to utilize the procedural mechanisms available to him for preserving his single subject challenge for appellate review, this court, in keeping with the limitations on the impact of the decision in Maddox, will not consider the merits of the single subject challenge raised by appellant for the first time in his amended initial brief. See Capre v. State, 773 So.2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (declining to reach merits of alleged sentencing error where defendant’s trial had taken place after most recent amendments to rule 3.800(b) and defendant had failed to raise the issue in the trial court or in postsenteneing proceedings pursuant to rule 3.800(b)); Reese v. State, 763 So.2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(<HOLDING>). DAVIS and BROWNING, JJ., concur. 1 . See Options: A. holding that a sentencing error which had been held to be fundamental for defendants falling within the window period identified in maddox could not be raised for the first time on appeal by a defendant who had filed his initial appellate brief outside the window period identified in maddox without having previously raised his sentencing issue in the trial court either by objection or by postsentencing 3800b motion filed before or after the filing of his notice of appeal B. holding issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review C. holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal D. holding that for defendants whose initial briefs were filed after the effective date of rule 3800b2 the failure to preserve a fundamental sentencing error by motion under rule 3800b or by objection during the sentencing hearing forecloses them from raising the error on direct appeal E. holding that failure to preserve a fundamental sentencing error by motion under rule 3800b or by objection during the sentencing hearing forecloses a defendant from raising the error on direct appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a sentencing error which had been held to be fundamental for defendants falling within the window period identified in maddox could not be raised for the first time on appeal by a defendant who had filed his initial appellate brief outside the window period identified in maddox without having previously raised his sentencing issue in the trial court either by objection or by postsentencing 3800b motion filed before or after the filing of his notice of appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 993, 998 (9th Cir.2001), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 272 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir.2001). “One favored purpose of bifurcation is to ... [avoid] a difficult question by first dealing with an easier, dispositive issue.” Danjaq L.L.C. v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252, 1261 (9th Cir.1982)). In Jinro America Inc., the district court bifurcated a matter to make “an initial determination ... [of] whether the parties had entered into a valid agreement and, if so, what that agreement entailed.” 266 F.3d at 998. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court “did not abuse its discretion in ordering the trial bifurcated.” Id. (reversing and remanding on other grounds). It noted that t ps of Engineers, 883 F.Supp.2d 627, 633 (S.D.W.Va.2012) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 716 F.3d 119 (4th Cir.2013); Vehicle Options: A. holding portions of summary judgment motion in abeyance pending an evidentiary hearing B. holding summary judgment motions in abeyance for possible evidentiary hearing C. holding that the trial court grants or denies motions for summary judgment on the basis of what is contained in the motions for summary judgment and the responses thereto D. holding evidentiary hearing on defense of judicial estoppel after parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment E. holding crossmotions for summary judgment in abeyance conducting a fourday evidentiary hearing and then disposing of the motions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding crossmotions for summary judgment in abeyance conducting a fourday evidentiary hearing and then disposing of the motions
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 Borrower and each Guarantor has the corporate or other power and authority and legal right to execute and deliver the Loan Documents and to perform its obligations thereunder. The execution and delivery by each of the Borrowers and each of the Guarantors of the Loan Documents and the performance of their obligations thereunder have been duly authorized by proper corporate proceedings, and the Loan Documents to which they are a party constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of the Borrowers and the Guarantors enforceable against the Borrowers and the Guarantors in accordance with their terms, except as enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors' rights generally and by equitable principles affecting the availability of specific performance and other 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term or provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced by any rule of law or public policy, all other terms and provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the economic or legal substance of the transactions contemplated hereby is not affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon determination that any term or other provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to attempt to agree on a modification of this Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible to the fullest extent permitted by law in an acceptable manner to the end that the transactions contemplated hereby are fulfilled to the greatest extent possible. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement or any other Exchange Document (and without implication that the following is required or applicable), it is the intention of the parties that in no event shall amounts and value paid by the Company, or payable to or received by the Creditor, under the Exchange Documents, including without limitation, any amounts that would be characterized as “interest” under applicable law, exceed amounts permitted under any such applicable law. Accordingly, if any obligation to pay, payment made to the Creditor, or collection by the Creditor pursuant the Exchange Documents is finally judicially determined to be contrary to any such applicable law, such obligation to pay, payment or collection shall be deemed to have been made by mutual mistake of the Creditor and the Company and such amount shall be deemed to have been adjusted with retroactive effect to the maximum amount or rate of interest, as the case may be, as would not be so prohibited by the applicable law. Such adjustment shall be effected, to the extent necessary, by reducing or refunding, at the option of the Creditor, the amount of interest or any other amounts which would constitute unlawful amounts required to be paid or actually paid to the Creditor under the Exchange Documents. For greater certainty, to the extent that any interest, charges, fees, expenses or other amounts required to be paid to or received by the Creditor under any of the Exchange Documents or related thereto are held to be within the meaning of “interest” or another applicable term to otherwise be violative of applicable law, such amounts shall be pro-rated over the period of time to which they relate.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: has stated that it “attribute[s] postrevocation penalties to the original conviction.” Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 701, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000). This position finds support in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a), which notes that supervised release is “a part of the sentence.” When read as such, a revocation sentence should be seen as part of the initial sentence, even when the same act triggers multiple revocations. See United States v. Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d 788, 790 (9th Cir.1995). Coupled with the conclusion that a district court has statutory discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) to impose consecutive sentences upon revocation of concurrent terms of supervised release, Double Jeopardy is not implicated here. See also United States v. Clark, 984 F.2d 319 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). D. Next, Dees asserts that the District Court Options: A. holding that a defendant who was on probation and supervised release for separate offenses could be resentenced consecutively for the same conduct that led to his probationsupervised release violation B. holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release C. holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses D. holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release E. holding that the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error where nothing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release and there was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a defendant who was on probation and supervised release for separate offenses could be resentenced consecutively for the same conduct that led to his probationsupervised release violation
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: not err in her evaluation of the medical evidence or in discounting Casey’s subjective complaints. Casey challenges the ALJ’s reliance on Dr. May’s RFC opinion, directing us to Nevland v. Apfel where we reversed an ALJ’s decision because he relied on the opinions of nontreating, nonex-amining physicians in determining the claimant’s RFC. 204 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir.2000). But as we recognized in Eichelberger v. Barnhart, Nevland addressed the evidence necessary to satisfy an ALJ’s burden of proof at step five in the disability analysis; Nevland does not preclude the ALJ’s reliance on a reviewing physician’s report at step four when the burden is on the claimant to establish an inability to do past relevant work. 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir.2004); see also Masterson, 363 F.3d at 737-39 (<HOLDING>). “It is well settled that an ALJ may consider Options: A. holding that the alj properly relied on the assessments of a nonexamining physician and not claimants treating physicians in determining the rfc at step four B. holding that the alj properly discounted a treating physicians report where the physician was unsure of the accuracy of his findings and statements C. holding that the commissioner must determine a claimants rfc based on all of the relevant evidence including medical records observations of treating physicians and others and an individuals own description of the limitations D. holding that the alj erred in failing to give the findings and assessments of the treating physicians any weight when the medical evidence and claimants testimony supported a diagnosis of cfs E. holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the alj properly relied on the assessments of a nonexamining physician and not claimants treating physicians in determining the rfc at step four
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court’s determination must be treated as a ruling on a question of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.1. Rule 44.1 provides courts with broad authority to conduct their own independent research to determine foreign law but imposes no duty upon them to do so. See Carey v. Bahama Cruise Lines, 864 F.2d 201, 205 (1st Cir.1988) (“[Rule] 44.1 empowers a federal court to determine foreign law on its own, but does not oblige it do so.”). Thus, the party claiming foreign law applies carries both the burden of raising the issue that foreign law may apply in an action and the burden of proving foreign law to enable the district court to apply it in a particular case. Cf. Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. Sevaux, 96 F.3d 216, 221 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Where a party fails to satisfy either burden, Options: A. holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal B. holding that party waived conflicts of law issue because it failed to fulfill its obligation under rule 441 to provide the district court with reasonable notice of his intention to raise an issue of foreign law C. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus waived appellate review of that issue D. holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief E. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that party waived conflicts of law issue because it failed to fulfill its obligation under rule 441 to provide the district court with reasonable notice of his intention to raise an issue of foreign 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Members agree to execute, acknowledge, deliver, file, record and publish such further certificates, instruments, agreements and other documents, and to take all such further action as may be required under the Act or other Applicable Law, or deemed necessary, appropriate or advisable in furtherance of the Company’s purposes and the objectives and intentions underlying this Agreement to the extent the same is not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement.

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: Employee will be eligible to receive health (single coverage), dental (single coverage), personal disability, retirement, and/or other fringe benefits as are provided to similarly situated executives of the Company from time to time, as well as Employee may participate in the Company’s 401(k) retirement plan, all as described in Addendum A hereto. Employee shall receive the relocation benefits and other specified benefits described in Addendum A, and Employee shall be eligible for paid time off as described in Addendum A.

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: This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts (including execution by facsimile or other electronic transmission) with the same effect as if all signing parties had signed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and constitute the same document. Signature pages may be detached from the counterparts and attached to a single copy of this consent to physically form one document.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provisions of this Agreement shall be declared to be invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof which shall remain in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The proceeds of the Tranche A Term Loans and the Tranche B Term Loans, together with the proceeds of the Revolving Loans made on the Closing Date and the proceeds of the New Senior Notes will be used by the Borrower on the Closing Date to pay the Transaction Costs, to consummate the Existing Indebtedness Refinancing, to pay the cash portion of the Merger Consideration (as defined in the Purchase Agreement) and for general corporate purposes. The proceeds of the Revolving Loans after the Closing Date will be used for general corporate purposes. No part of the proceeds of any Loan will be used, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose that entails a violation of any of the Regulations of the Board, including Regulations U and X. Letters of Credit will be issued only to support the operations in the ordinary course of business of the Parent and the Restricted Subsidiaries.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1310. Instead, this Court applied Tapia to hold that a district court errs whenever it “considers rehabilitation when imposing or lengthening a sentence of imprisonment.” Id. Here, in the course of discussing the factors it weighed in arriving at Mr. Al-berts’s prison sentence, the District Court told him that he “need[ed] a period of time where [he] can receive the treatment that [he] should have.” Thus, the District Court erred by considering Mr. Alberts’s need for rehabilitation as a factor in determining his prison sentence. Further, because our binding precedent clearly precludes consideration of rehabilitation when crafting a prison sentence, see id., that error was plain. See United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). However, the District Court’s error did not Options: A. holding that an error is plain only if it is clear under current law when there is no binding precedent on point an instruction typically will not be plain error B. holding that an error can be plain even in the absence of binding case law where it violates an absolutely clear legal norm C. holding that an error cannot be plain unless it is clear under current law quotation omitted D. holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law E. holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an error cannot be plain unless it is clear under current law quotation omitted
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: now cannot, through the exercise of its own medical expertise and judgment. Coupled with the lack of a reasons-or-bases requirement at the time of the November 1983 decision, it is, at a minimum, not undebatable that the Board found the October 1982 opinion to be deficient in some way, and the appellant’s arguments amount to a disagreement as to how the Board weighed the evidence of record— something that cannot constitute CUE. See Damrel, 6 Vet.App. at 245; Russell, 3 Vet.App. at 313-14. To be clear, the Court does not hold that it would reach the same result were it reviewing this case on direct appeal. See King, 26 Vet.App. at 442. The Court cannot conclude, however, that the November 1983 Board decision misapplied § 3.310(a). See Kent v. Principi, 389 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we hold that the Board’s Options: A. holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo B. recognizing that appellate court reviews questions of law de novo C. holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo D. holding that the court is obliged to review questions of law de novo in cue challenges E. recognizing de novo standard of review

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the court is obliged to review questions of law de novo in cue challenges
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 any required action by the shareholders of the Company, the number of Shares covered by each outstanding Award, and the number of Shares which have been authorized for issuance under the Plan but as to which no Awards have yet been granted or which have been returned to the Plan, the exercise or purchase price of each such outstanding Award, as well as any other terms that the Administrator determines require adjustment shall be proportionately adjusted for (i) any increase or decrease in the number of issued and outstanding Shares resulting from a stock split, reverse stock split, stock dividend, combination or reclassification of the Shares, or similar transaction affecting the Shares, (ii) any other increase or decrease in the number of issued and outstanding Shares effected without receipt of consideration by the Company, or (iii) any other transaction with respect to the Company’s Common Stock including a corporate merger, consolidation, acquisition of property or stock, separation (including a spin-off or other distribution of stock or property), reorganization, liquidation (whether partial or complete) or any similar transaction; provided, however that conversion of any convertible securities of the Company shall not be deemed to have been “effected without receipt of consideration.” Such adjustment shall be made by the Administrator and its determination shall be final, binding and conclusive. Except as the Administrator determines, no issuance by the Company of shares of stock of any class, or securities convertible into shares of stock of any class, shall affect, and no adjustment by reason hereof shall be made with respect to, the number or price of Shares subject to an Award. No adjustments shall be made for dividends paid in cash or in property other than Common Stock of the Company, nor shall cash dividends or dividend equivalents accrue or be paid in respect of unexercised Options or unvested Awards hereunder.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice or other communication to Fannie Mae pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered by hand, electronic mail (with confirmation), overnight express or similar service (fees prepaid), or first‑class United States registered or certified mail with return receipt requested (postage prepaid), to Fannie Mae at the address (which may be changed by written notice) shown below. The Transaction Parties request that any communication from Fannie Mae to any Transaction Party, as applicable, be given in the same manner, and under the same procedures, as provided above, with the Transaction Parties’ addresses for such purpose, and related information, being as shown below.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: At the request of the Company, Employee agrees to cooperate with the Company’s reasonable requests for assistance removing Employee’s name from corporate boards, other corporate documents, bank accounts and the like, including, but not limited to, signing documents and taking other action as requested by the Company. By taking such actions in response to the request of the Company, Employee is not forfeiting any right to indemnity or defense that may be afforded to Employee under Delaware or other applicable laws.

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: offense that results in the commission of an offense by another person in another county, or who commits the crime of hindering prosecution of the principal offense, may be tried in either county.” 4 Although venue is not an element of the offense, it is a material allegation that the state must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cervantes, 319 Or 121, 123, 873 P2d 316 (1994); State v. McMillan A113456, 199 Or App 408, 412, 111 P3d 1154 (2005). 5 The state also argues that Curry County was a proper venue for defendant’s trial because he intended to hinder Everts’s prosecution there. However, neither actual prosecution of the underlying offender nor successful hindrance of prosecution is an element of ORS 162.325. Cf. State v. Roper, 286 Or 621, 595 P2d 1247 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, we reject the state’s argument Options: A. holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins B. holding that two conspiracies existed where the members of the second conspiracy did not know about the first conspiracy did not benefit from the first conspiracy and were connected with the first conspiracy only through a middleman C. holding that where an agreement constituting criminal conspiracy was made in clackamas county it was irrelevant to the venue issue that the object of the conspiracy robberywas intended to be committed in multnomah county because actual commission of the object crime is not an element of conspiracy D. holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges E. holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where an agreement constituting criminal conspiracy was made in clackamas county it was irrelevant to the venue issue that the object of the conspiracy robberywas intended to be committed in multnomah county because actual commission of the object crime is not an element of conspiracy
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: None of the Purchaser, its Affiliates, or, to the best of Purchaser’s knowledge, any of their directors, officers, or employees (or any employees, officers or directors of Fortress Investment Group LLC participating in the negotiation or performance of this Agreement) is a person that is (i) a target of United States economic, financial, or trade sanctions in force from time to time, (ii) named, identified, or described on any blocked person list, specially designated nationals lists, prohibited persons list, or other official list of restricted persons with whom United States persons may not conduct business, including, but not limited to, restricted party lists published or maintained by the United States government, including, without limitation, the respective governmental institutions and agencies of any of the foregoing including, without limitation, the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the United States Department of State, or (iii) owned or controlled by, or an actor on behalf of, any persons described in clauses (i) and (ii).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: apply to statutory appeals in general, or to assessment appeals specifically. Instead, the Supreme Court stated: [O]ur trial courts have had the right to enact rules and publish these to cover practice in this area of the law. Where they have not created and published such local rules, then each trial court has been vested with the full authority of the court to make rules of practice for the proper disposition of cases before them and that we have enforced those rules unless they violated the Constitution or laws of the Commonwealth or United States, or our state-wide rules. Id. at 554. Where no local rule exists, the trial court may, but is not required to, apply the Pa. R.C.P. by analogy. See, e.g., Codispot v. Butler County Tax Claim Bureau, 938 A.2d 499, 503-04 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (<HOLDING>). Here, no local rule governs how an appellant Options: A. holding that rule does not apply where defendant made false representations B. holding that the requirements of rule 3700 apply to resentencing C. holding a local government sued under 1983 has no immunity even if its employee is entitled to qualified immunity and the court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over the local governments interlocutory appeal D. holding that procedural bar rule does not apply to ineffectiveness claims E. holding that while pa rcp no 2271 does not apply to tax assessment appeals the trial court has discretion to apply its requirements where no local rule exists

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that while pa rcp no 2271 does not apply to tax assessment appeals the trial court has discretion to apply its requirements where no local rule exists
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 Party shall be responsible for its own taxes, duties, levies, imposts, assessments, deductions, fees, withholdings or similar charges imposed on or measured by net income or overall gross income (including branch profits), gross receipts, capital, ability or right to do business, property, and franchise or similar taxes pursuant to applicable Law. If Allergan is required to deduct or withhold from any payment due hereunder any taxes, duties, levies, imposts, assessments, deductions, fees, and other similar charges by applicable Law or any Governmental Authority (“ Withholding Taxes ”), then Allergan shall pay such Withholding Taxes to the local applicable Governmental Authority and make the payment to Assembly of the net amount due after deduction or withholding of such taxes. Such Withholding Taxes shall be treated for all purposes of this Agreement as having been paid to Assembly hereunder. Allergan shall submit reasonable proof of payment of the Withholding Taxes within a reasonable period of time after such Withholding Taxes are remitted to the Governmental Authority. The Parties shall reasonably cooperate to eliminate or minimize any such Withholding Taxes. Assembly shall indemnify and hold harmless Allergan for any taxes, including Withholding Taxes, Assembly owes to a Governmental Authority for which Allergan is held responsible and for which prior withholding has not been made, and Allergan shall hold Assembly harmless for any fees, penalties and interest that are imposed on Assembly arising out of Allergan’s failure to withhold and remit Withholding Taxes to Governmental Authorities in accordance with this Section and applicable Laws, unless such failure arises from the acts or omissions of Assembly (for example, the provision of incorrect beneficial owner information or invalid forms). The Parties will reasonably cooperate to provide sufficient documentation to enable Assembly to receive any credits available under applicable Law. Assembly represents and agrees that it is the beneficial owner of the payments and is a resident of the United States by virtue of the applicable Law of the United States, and does not have a fixed base, office or permanent establishment in Ireland through which it carries on a trade or business.

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: Except (i) for proceedings of which the Purchaser or any of its Representatives is aware, or (ii) as disclosed in the Partnership’s reports filed under the Exchange Act, as of the date hereof, there are no legal or governmental proceedings pending to which any Partnership Entity is a party or to which any Property or asset of any Partnership Entity is subject that could reasonably be expected to have, individually or in the aggregate, a Material Adverse Effect or which challenge the validity of this Agreement or the right of any Partnership Entity to enter into this Agreement or to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and, to the Knowledge of the Partnership, no such proceedings are threatened by Governmental Authorities or others.

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: injured spouse to receive some compensation, especially when the insurance company is the “real” party being sued. Such tension could potentially lead to a threat of corruption. Although the possibility of collusion exists in various situations such as intrafamily cases and suits between friends, the judicial system is adept at ferreting out frivolous and unfounded cases. It is unnecessary and unwise to deny legitimate claims in order to prevent fraudulent and collusive suits because the judicial system contains numerous safeguards and deterrents against fraudulent claims such as perjury charges and modern discovery procedures. Luna v. Clayton, Tenn.Supr., 655 S.W.2d 893, 896-97 (1983). Cf, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The conclusion that the abrogation of the Options: A. holding that federal rule of evidence 702 supersedes the general acceptance rule regarding scientific evidence and that the adversarial process including vigorous crossexamination provides safeguards against admission of junk science evidence B. holding that hgn evidence is scientific and therefore must satisfy the pertinent delaware rules of evidence governing the admission of such evidence C. holding that scientific evidence must satisfy the pertinent delaware rules of evidence concerning admission of scientific testimony or evidence ie dre 401 402 403 702 and 703 and be relevant and reliable D. holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper E. holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that federal rule of evidence 702 supersedes the general acceptance rule regarding scientific evidence and that the adversarial process including vigorous crossexamination provides safeguards against admission of junk science evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: dissent that the “course of the proceedings” exception to our pleading rules does not apply when the alleged notice arises during the course of a discovery deposition. Certainly, the breadth of discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and 32(d)(3)(A) allows questions designed to elicit admissible evidence, which at trial might be deemed irrelevant. The breadth of discovery, however, does not lead logically to Judge Griffin’s conclusion that questions posed by plaintiffs counsel during depositions cannot put defendants on notice regarding a claim not specifically alleged in the complaint. This conclusion ignores the fact that the proceedings referred to in Cummings themselves involved a deposition. 418 F.3d at 681; see also Torry v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 399 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The transcript of Spies’s deposition Options: A. holding that a delay of more than four years caused largely by the state making pretrial appeals was reasonable under the circumstances B. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law C. holding that magistrate judge could without consent of parties hold a pretrial hearing and issue a report and recommendation based on the findings made D. holding that a claim not alleged in the complaint was pretried by implied consent of the parties during four years of discovery and other pretrial maneuverings E. holding delay of two years and four months lengthy enough to warrant review of other factors

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a claim not alleged in the complaint was pretried by implied consent of the parties during four years of discovery and other pretrial maneuverings
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and probative evidence of record. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284. This standard is “highly deferential.” The BIA’s decision can be reversed only “if the evidence compels a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.” Kueviakoe, 567 F.3d at 1304 (quotation omitted); Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284. Under this test, we “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir.2004) (en banc). The fact that evidence in the record may also support a conclusion contrary to the administrative findings is not enough to justify a reversal. (Id.). Adverse credibility determinations must be made explicitly. See Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). In asylum applications filed on or after May Options: A. holding the wcjs credibility determinations precluded any meaningful appellate review because the court had to imagine why the wcj made such credibility determinations B. holding that credibility determinations are for the jury C. holding that the ij must make clean determinations of credibility D. holding that we review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence E. holding that credibility determinations are reviewed only for substantial evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the ij must make clean determinations of credibility