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: distribution to general unsecured creditors, provided it submitted a claim and such claim was ultimately allowed. However, Nevada State Bank has not filed a proof of claim in this proceeding, and the bar date for filing claims has passed. Therefore, in this case, Nevada State Bank does not have an allowed claim, Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3002(a); 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), and is not entitled to share in any pro-rata distribution made to unsecured creditors. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3021. 9 . Other courts considering this issue have concluded that a debtor may not employ 506(d) to avoid the lien, as this would constitute an end-run around the Supreme Court’s holding in Dewsnup. Gerardin, (finding lien modification under Section 506(d) improper if claim it secures is a secured claim); Hill, 440 B.R. at 181 (<HOLDING>); This court agrees that 506(d) may not be used Options: A. holding that the words allowed secured claim in 506d refer to a claim that is secured by a lien and allowed under 502 B. holding that section 506d does not permit the strip down of a partially secured lien C. holding that permitting lien avoidance in these circumstances would defraud judicial lienholders D. holding that consumer lien avoidance powers of section 522f cannot be applied retroactively E. holding that allowing lien avoidance solely under section 506d would run afoul of dewsnup

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that allowing lien avoidance solely under section 506d would run afoul of dewsnup
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: element of unconscionability has been met. In particular, Smith offers no evidence to show he lacked other options for purchasing vehicles from other manu facturers or for obtaining additional warranty protection from Ford. See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 211 Cal.App.3d 758, 768, 259 Cal.Rptr. 789 (1989) (finding “claim of oppression may be defeated if the complaining party had reasonably available alternative sources of supply from which to obtain the desired goods ... free of the terms claimed to be unconscionable”). Indeed, Smith acknowledges extended warranty options were available from Ford and that he chose not to purchase any such extended warranty. (See Smith Dep. at 20:15-21:18, 51:14-52:18); see also Berenblat v. Apple, Inc., 2010 WL 1460297, *4-5 (N.D.Cal.2010) (<HOLDING>). Nor does Smith offer any evidence to show he Options: A. holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only B. holding plaintiffs were not foreclosed from pursuing ucc remedies outside of written warranty because warranty notice provision did not specify that the remedies provided were exclusive of any other remedy C. holding that subse quent purchaser was entitled to protections of express written warranty but could not assert claim for implied warranty because complaint did not allege privity between purchaser plaintiff and defendant honda D. holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty E. holding on motion to dismiss plaintiffs failed to allege oppression where despite nonnegotiability of warranty terms plaintiffs did not allege they lacked other options for purchasing laptop computers or for obtaining additional warranty protections from defendant itself

assistant: The best answer is E. holding on motion to dismiss plaintiffs failed to allege oppression where despite nonnegotiability of warranty terms plaintiffs did not allege they lacked other options for purchasing laptop computers or for obtaining additional warranty protections from defendant itself
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices and other communications given or made pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed effectively given upon the earlier of actual receipt or: (a) personal delivery to the party to be notified, (b) when sent, if sent by electronic mail or facsimile during normal business hours of the recipient, and if not sent during normal business hours, then on the recipient’s next business day, (c) five (5) days after having been sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or (d) one (1) business day after deposit with a nationally recognized overnight courier, freight prepaid, specifying next business day delivery, with written verification of receipt. All communications shall be sent to the respective parties at their address as set forth on Schedule A or Schedule B hereof, as the case may be, or to such email address, facsimile number or address as subsequently modified by written notice given in accordance with this Section 5.5 .

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: This AGREEMENT may be executed in several counterparts, and shall be effective when so executed by all PARTIES identified below and thereupon shall constitute one agreement, binding on all PARTIES hereto, notwithstanding that all PARTIES are not signatory to the original or the same counterpart.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in that opinion, however, that the Seventh Circuit would permit an indemnification or contribution claim to be brought by the employer against the supervisor. Likewise, the legislative history of the FLSA cited by Defendants does not support such a claim. See Herman, 172 F.3d at 144 (noting that the text of the FLSA makes no provision for contribution or indemnification and the Act’s legislative history is silent on a right to contribution or indemnification). Other cases cited by Defendants demonstrate the federal courts’ refusal to recognize a federal common law right to indemnity or contribution except in limited circumstances. (Defs.’ Resp. at 7, citing, e.g., Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 451 U.S. 77, 101 S.Ct. 1571, 67 L.Ed.2d 750 (1981) (<HOLDING>), and Tumer/Ozanne v. Hyman/Power, 111 F.3d Options: A. holding employer had no right of contribution under equal pay act title vii or federal common law against unions that allegedly bore at least partial responsibility for statutory violations B. holding that same standard applies to equal pay act and title vii wage discrimination claims C. recognizing a right to contribution D. holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii E. holding that final responsibility for enforcement of title vii is vested with federal courts

assistant: The best answer is A. holding employer had no right of contribution under equal pay act title vii or federal common law against unions that allegedly bore at least partial responsibility for statutory violations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to participate in interscholastic athletics for a period of one year. The bylaws, in essence, create an irrebuttable conclusion of law that all other transferees have been the victims of unscrupulous practices. This is precisely where the rules sweep too broadly, they create an over-inclusive class — those who move from one school to another for reasons wholly unrelated to athletics are grouped together with those who have been recruited or who have “jumped” for athletic reasons. In short, the purported objective of the transferee eligibility rules it to prevent the use of undue influence and school “jumping,” but their practical effect is (denying equal protection challenge to high school transfer rule); Whipple v. Or. Sch. Activities Ass’n, 52 Or.App. 419, 629 P.2d 384 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Cooper, 629 P.2d at 395 (holding that Options: A. holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection B. holding transfer eligibility rule did not deny the student equal protection of the laws or procedural or substantive due process under the fourteenth amendment C. holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws D. holding that transfer rule denying eligibility to students transferring from public to private schools did not violate the students rights to due process or equal protection of the laws as provided by the fourteenth amendment E. holding missouri transfer rule did not violate equal protection

assistant: The best answer is B. holding transfer eligibility rule did not deny the student equal protection of the laws or procedural or substantive due process under the fourteenth amendment
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 violate these terms , or any of our other terms that apply to you , we may take action against you , up to and including permanently suspending your account in addition , you may be breaking the law , including violations of zynga 's intellectual property rights .

assistant: Unilateral termination
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 Sellers, Guarantor or any other direct or indirect Subsidiary of Guarantor is or has ever been the subject of an Insolvency Proceeding. Each Seller, Guarantor and all of its other direct or indirect Subsidiaries is Solvent and the Transactions do not and will not render any Seller, Guarantor or any other direct or indirect Subsidiary of Guarantor not Solvent. No Seller is entering into the Repurchase Documents or any Transaction with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of any Seller, Guarantor or any other direct or indirect Subsidiary of Guarantor. Each Seller has received or will receive reasonably equivalent value for the Repurchase Documents and each Transaction. Each Seller has adequate capital for the normal obligations reasonably foreseeable in a business of its size and character and in light of its contemplated business operations. Each Seller is generally able to pay, and as of each Purchase Date is paying, its debts as they come due.

assistant: Solvency
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: 375 F.3d 1341 (Fed.Cir.2004). Since, as we explain below, sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict, we need not consider whether the District’s failure to move for judgment as a matter of law at the close of its own case (as opposed to at the close of Smith’s case) further limits our review “to considering whether the verdict is so unsupported by the evidence that allowing it to stand would constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice,” Fredrick, 254 F.3d at 162. The District presents two fact-based challenges to the jury’s verdict. First, it argues that the jury could not have reasonably concluded that the District had a deliberately indifferent policy or custom under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Second, it claims that even had such a policy Options: A. holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under 1983 through official policy or custom B. holding that county liability under 1983 cannot rest on a theory of respondeat superior C. holding that conditionsofconfinement claims must be brought in 42 usc 1983 civil rights complaint rather than in habeas petition D. recognizing respondeat superior liability E. holding that municipal liability for purposes of claims brought under 42 usc 1983 must stem from an unconstitutional policy or custom rather than simply from respondeat superior

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that municipal liability for purposes of claims brought under 42 usc 1983 must stem from an unconstitutional policy or custom rather than simply from respondeat superior
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: except as expressly and specifically set forth in this these terms of service , no representations , statements , consents , waivers , or other acts or omissions by supercell shall be deemed a modification of these terms of service nor legally binding , unless documented in physical writing , hand signed by you and a duly appointed officer of supercell .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the first year of the Term, the Company shall pay to Employee an annual base salary (the “ Base Salary ”) of $325,000. For each successive twelve-month period during the Term, commencing with the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2017, the Company shall pay to Employee a Base Salary of no less than 3% above the then existing Base Salary for the prior year. The Base Salary shall be payable in accordance with the normal payroll procedures of the Company. The Base Salary shall be reviewed by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “ Board ”) not less than once each fiscal year.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT AND ANY OF THE AGREEMENTS DELIVERED IN CONNECTION HEREWITH OR THE MERGER AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY. EACH PARTY CERTIFIES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT (A) NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE EITHER OF SUCH WAIVERS, (B) IT UNDERSTANDS AND HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH WAIVERS, (C) IT MAKES SUCH WAIVERS VOLUNTARILY, AND (D) IT HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 10(f) .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: omitted). 5 . Century Indent. Co. v. Nat'l Gypsum Co. Settlement Trust (In re Nat’l Gypsum Co.), 208 F.3d 498, 504 (5th Cir.2000). 6 . Fuentes v. Newhouse (In re McLain), 516 F.3d 301, 313 (5th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 . Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 . Andrews v. Riggs Nat’l Bank of Wash., D.C. (In re Andrews), 80 F.3d 906, 909-10 (4th Cir. 1996). 9 . The Trustee has nearly ignored this key issue in her briefs. 10 . See 11 U.S.C. §§ 323(a) and 363(b)(1). 11 . Westwood Community Two Assn, Inc. v. Barbee (In re Westwood Community Two Assn, Inc.), 266 B.R. 223, 226 (S.D.Fla.2001). 12 . Hopkins v. Foothill Mt., Inc. (In re Hopkins), 346 B.R. 294, 303 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Green v. Kasishke (In re Kasishke), 40 B.R. 712, 714 (Bankr.N.D.Tex. 1984) Options: A. holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary B. holding that funds held by chapter 13 trustee become property of the chapter 7 estate upon conversion not subject to exemption C. holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code D. holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee E. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee
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: 1710 (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). The important criterion in a vagueness analysis of an aggravating circumstance is narrowing: “A capital sentencing scheme must, in short, provide a meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which [the penalty] is imposed from the many cases in which it is not.” Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 427, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). Our analysis is relatively simple in this case. Even though the aggravator at issue was phrased as “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind,” the jury held more narrowly that “the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel and h Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1120, 115 S.Ct. 923, Options: A. holding that intentional acts exclusion applies to intentional act of child molestation B. holding that intentional torture suffices C. recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence D. holding that no intentional police misrepresentation occurred E. holding that liability insurer had duty to defend insured against complaint that alleged intentional tort and negligence in the alternative even when policy excluded coverage for intentional torts

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that intentional torture suffices
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: strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them.”); Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206-07, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1707, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987) (“This accords with the almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions, which we have applied in many varying contexts.”) (citation omitted); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 415, 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2082, 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (stating that “the question is reduced to whether, in light of the competing values at stake, we may rely on the crucial assumption that the jurors followed the instructions given them by the trial judge,” and answering that question in the affirmative) (quotation marks omitted); Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 324 n.9, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1976 n.9, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985) (<HOLDING>). We have obediently followed and repeated the Options: A. holding that a jury is presumed to follow a judges instructions B. recognizing the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions C. holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions D. holding that the law presumes that the jury will follow the courts instructions E. recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The term "Confidential Information" as used herein means all trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information of either party, whether or not marked “Confidential”, whether in written or oral form, relating to such party's business or technology, including without limitation, its products, customer data, development and marketing plans, and financial information.

assistant: No
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 Executive waives any right to a trial by jury in any action to enforce or defend any right under this Agreement or any amendment, instrument, document or agreement delivered or to be delivered in connection with this Agreement or arising from any employment relationship existing in connection with this Agreement, and agrees that any action shall be tried before an arbitrator, as outlined in Section 8, and not before a jury.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the parties to this Agreement will be entitled to enforce its rights under this Agreement specifically, to recover damages by reason of any breach of any provision of this Agreement and to exercise all other rights existing in its favor. The parties hereto agree and acknowledge that money damages may not be an adequate remedy for any breach of the provisions of this Agreement and that any party may in its sole discretion apply to any court of law or equity of competent jurisdiction for specific performance and/or injunctive relief in order to enforce or prevent any violations of the provisions of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and the Holders acknowledge that there would be no adequate remedy at law if any party fails to perform any of its obligations hereunder, and accordingly agree that the Company and each Holder, in addition to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law or in equity, shall be entitled to compel specific performance of the obligations of another under this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement in any court of the United States or any State thereof having jurisdiction.

assistant: Specific Performance
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 the United States, 497 F.3d 972 (9th Cir.2007). In that case, the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“Cedars-Sinai”) brought a state-law action against the administrator of a federal employees’ benefit plan alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation in connection with partial reimbursement of claims for medical treatment. The administrator removed the suit to federal district court. Id. at 974. The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that Cedars-Sinai’s claims were preempted by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act (“FEHBA”), 5 U.S.C. § 8901. FEHBA and ERISA are different federal statutes, but their preemption provisions are analytically similar. See, e.g., Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mont., Inc., 314 F.3d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, our opinion in Cedars-Sinai was based Options: A. holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists B. holding that fehbas complete preemption provision closely resembles erisas express preemption provision and precedent interpreting the erisa provision thus provides authority for cases involving the fehba provision C. holding that defendants testimony that he did not see a provision in the agreement because the plaintiffcounterparty failed to direct him to the provision was insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud and defendant was therefore bound to the terms of the provision D. holding that 502a may serve as an independent basis for preemption where 514a the blanket erisa preemption provision is inapplicable E. holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that fehbas complete preemption provision closely resembles erisas express preemption provision and precedent interpreting the erisa provision thus provides authority for cases involving the fehba provision
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to reconsider Bartholomew, wherein we stated that if a warrant’s particularity depends upon an affidavit of probable cause, the affidavit cannot be filed under seal. 221 F.3d at 428-429. Because the warrant application here ultimately referred to the requisite information, the government contends that we should view the misstep here as a “clerical error,” and not a search pursuant to an invalid warrant. Reply Brief for United States 9. We are not impressed by the government’s position, for four reasons. First, the government’s arguments cannot be reconciled with the plain text of the Constitution. Documents that do not include a particular description of items to be seized are so facially deficient that they do not qualify as “warrants” at all. See Groh, 540 U.S. at 558, 124 S.Ct. 1284 (<HOLDING>). Applying that rule, we conclude that the Options: A. holding that when a warrant did not describe the items to be seized at all it was so obviously deficient that we must regard the search as warrantless B. holding that defendants motion to suppress was properly denied because the actual items seized fell within the valid portions of the warrant C. holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid and finding in the alternative that even if the warrant were found to be deficient the seized evidence was admissible under the good faith exception D. holding unconstitutional a search executed on a warrant that failed to list with particularity the items to be seized even where the supporting application contained such a list and the warrant was approved by a magistrate E. holding it was reasonably practicable to obtain warrant to search defendants vehicle where courts were open on day of warrantless search and judges were available to sign warrant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that when a warrant did not describe the items to be seized at all it was so obviously deficient that we must regard the search as warrantless
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: J. Appellant was convicted of felony driving under the influence. The main points of this appeal concern his attack on the use of prior DUI convictions to support the felony charge. The existence of his prior convictions was established by his sworn motion to dismiss admitting the 1974 and 1975 convictions, combined with the copy of his driver’s license record. See State v. Palmore, 510 So.2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>). State v. Pelicane, 729 So.2d 534, 535 (Fla. Options: A. holding that a defendant admits to the psis factual statements about his relevant conduct where he raises no objections to those statements B. holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief C. holding that the sixth amendment confrontation clause was not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under a georgia statute permitting an exception for statements by coconspirators where there was sufficient indicia of reliability supporting the truth of the statements D. holding that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of his miranda rights could be introduced to impeach that defendants credibility when the jury was instructed that the statements were not to be considered as evidence of his guilt E. holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief
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: case to warrant a reversal for abuse of discretion. See id. at 148. Here, none of the defendants can show prejudice. First, all of the defendants were charged in Count 1 of the indictment with conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine. This conspiracy was to be shown by the interrelationship of the alleged Short North drug dealers. Thus, a joint trial was appropriate under Rule 8(b). Only if a defendant can show prejudice to his case can we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by not granting severance under Rule 14. The district court included a number of cautionary statements in its instructions to the jury to reduce the possibility of prejudice with respect to a joint trial. Cf. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540, 113 S.Ct. 933 (<HOLDING>). For example, while explaining the general Options: A. holding that ujnless there is some good reason for finding otherwise courts proceed on the basis that the jury does comply with cautionary instructions B. holding that the district courts decision to delay jury instructions and deliberations did not warrant a presumption of prejudice C. holding that sometimes the risk of prejudice can be allayed by proper cautionary instructions D. holding that the district courts use of limiting instructions and other measures defused any risk of prejudice E. recognizing that a delay in proceedings to explore a collateral matter can create a risk of prejudice

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that sometimes the risk of prejudice can be allayed by proper cautionary instructions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement is the final and entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous discussions, statements, representations, warranties, correspondence, conditions, negotiations, understandings, promises and agreements, oral and written, with respect to such subject matter.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Fourth Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall be deemed one and the same instrument. Facsimile or electronic signatures on this Fourth Amendment shall be treated as and given full force and effect as original signatures.

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: Except as previously disclosed to REIT II pursuant to the REIT I Disclosure Letter or to Company pursuant to the REIT II Disclosure Letter, no broker, finder or investment banker is entitled to any brokerage, finder's or other fee or commission in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby based upon arrangements made by or on behalf of Advisor or its Affiliates.

assistant: Brokers
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: 12.1 airbnb may , in its sole discretion , round up or round down amounts that are payable from or to guests or hosts to the nearest whole functional base unit in which the currency is denominated ( i.e. to the nearest dollar , euro or other supported currency ) ; for example , airbnb will round up an amount of $ 101.50 to $ 102.00 , and round down an amount of $ 101.49 to $ 101.00 .

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: to the Wreck Act. On December 22, 2006, the United States filed a motion asking the district court to lift or modify its April 11, 2006 limitation order so that the United States could pursue its claim for the entirety of its wreck removal expenses under the Wreck Act against Southern Scrap outside of the context of the limitation proceeding. On April 26, 2007, the district court granted the United States’ motion, thereby allowing it to bring an unlimited personal liability claim under the Wreck Act outside of the context of the limitation proceeding against Southern Scrap for the entirety of the wreck removal expenses. Southern Scrap then timely filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). See Complaint of Mucho K, Inc., 578 F.2d 1156, 1157 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because we must Options: A. holding that section 4523755 provides that a third party may intervene in a case in which custody is at issue only in a dissolution of marriage action or a modification of a dissolution proceeding and reversing the circuit courts order permitting a grandmother to intervene in an adoption proceeding for the purposes of obtaining visitation B. holding injunction ordering prison to submit plan for reformation of unconstitutional prison conditions not appealable as interlocutory order under 28 usc 1292a1 C. holding that a district court order denying a motion to stay or dismiss because of the pendency of similar litigation in state court is not immediately appealable under section 1291 or section 1292a1 D. holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous E. holding that the modification or dissolution of an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding is appealable as a matter of right under 1292a1

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the modification or dissolution of an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding is appealable as a matter of right under 1292a1
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and the Executive shall bear their own costs, fees and expenses in connection with the negotiation, preparation and execution of this Agreement. If any contest or dispute shall arise under this Agreement involving the termination of the Executive’s employment with the Company (including, without limitation, the Restrictive Covenants) or involving the failure or refusal of the Company to perform fully in accordance with the terms hereof (a “ Dispute ”) and the Executive prevails on the material issues in such Dispute, the Company shall, upon presentment of appropriate documentation (which submission shall be made within forty-five (45) days after the resolution of such Dispute), promptly pay or reimburse the Executive, for all reasonable legal fees and expenses (including costs of the arbitrators) incurred by the Executive in connection with such Dispute.

assistant: Expenses
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: may recommend a particular sentence based upon the facts before the court. As part of a plea agreement, the Government is free to negotiate away any right it may have to recommend a sentence. However, the Government does not have a right to make an agreement to stand mute in the face of factual inaccuracies or to withhold relevant factual information from the court. Such an agreement not only violates a prosecutor’s duty to the court but would result in sentences based upon incomplete facts or factual inaccuracies, a notion that is simply abhorrent to our legal system. 660 F.2d 1086, 1090-92 (5th Cir.1981) (citations and footnotes omitted). The reasoning of Block has been adopted by the Fourth Circuit as well. E.g., United States v. Perrera, 842 F.2d 73, 75 (4th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dail, 1991 WL 631 at *2, Options: A. holding the government did not violate its plea agreement with a defendant because in addition to specifically retaining the right to comment at the sentencing hearing concerning defendants conduct and background the prosecuting attorney had a duty to bring all relevant information about defendant to the courts attention at the time of sentencing B. holding that the district court erred when it used rule 36 to amend the defendants sentence to include an order of forfeiture that had been agreed to in the plea agreement but which the court failed to make a part of its judgment at sentencing C. holding that we review for plain error whether the government breached its plea obligations when the defendant fails to object at sentencing D. holding that a defendant has the right both to present evidence to prove that the defendant does not qualify for sentencing under the act and to challenge the states evidence regarding the defendants eligibility for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender E. holding the government was required by law to correct a defendants misrepresentations at a sentencing hearing and doing so did not violate the plea agreement

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the government did not violate its plea agreement with a defendant because in addition to specifically retaining the right to comment at the sentencing hearing concerning defendants conduct and background the prosecuting attorney had a duty to bring all relevant information about defendant to the courts attention at the time of sentencing
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 reports, financial statements, certificates or other written information furnished by or on behalf of any Credit Party to the Administrative Agent or any Lender or any of their Affiliates in connection with the negotiation of this Agreement or any other Loan Document or delivered hereunder or under any other Loan Document (as modified or supplemented by other information so furnished) contains any material misstatement of fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; provided that, with respect to projected financial information and other forward looking information, the Parent and the Borrower represents only that such information was prepared in good faith based upon assumptions believed to be reasonable at the time so furnished, it being understood that such projections are not to be viewed as facts and that actual results during the period covered by any such projections may differ significantly from the projected results. There are no statements or conclusions in any Reserve Report which are based upon or include misleading information or fail to take into account material information regarding the matters reported therein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In case any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it shall, to the extent possible, be modified in such manner as to be valid, legal and enforceable but so as to most nearly retain the intent of the parties, and if such modification is not possible, such provision shall be severed from this Agreement, and in either case the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

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: This Guaranty shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors, assigns and legal representatives; provided , however , that Guarantor may not, without the prior written consent of Purchaser, assign any of its rights, powers, duties or obligations hereunder. Purchaser may assign or transfer its rights under this Guaranty in accordance with the transfer of assignment provisions of the Master Repurchase Agreement.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 394 U.S. 100 89 S.Ct. 766 22 L.Ed.2d 107 BLACK UNITY LEAGUE OF KENTUCKY et al.v.MILLER et al. No. 892. March 3, 1969. William M. Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy, Robert Allen Sedler and Morton Stavis, for appellants. W. Scott Miller, Jr., pro se, and for other appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellant organizations brought this suit for injunctive and declaratory relief against investigations which appellees, members of the Kentucky Un-American Activities Committee, were allegedly threatening to conduct. They contended that the investigations and accompanying contempt prosecutions would violate various rights, primarily those under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They did not allege that any of their officers or members had been called as witnesses, or that any subpoenas had been issued, or that any criminal prosecutions had been begun. The allegations of harassment were entirely conclusory. Appellees moved to dismiss, and appellants failed to respond, as was required by local court rules. These rules also stated that '(f)ailure to respond may be good grounds for sustaining the motion.' D.C.W.D.Ky. Rule 5(a). We hold that in this procedural context the trial court could take appellants' conclusory allegations as insubstantial and could dismiss the complaint for failure to allege sufficient irreparable injury to justify federal intervention at this early stage. For this reason, the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. 2 Motion to affirm granted and judgment affirmed. 3 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissents.

assistant: 9
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: Lender may at any time upon written notice to Borrowers sell to one or more Persons participating interests in its Loans, Revolving Loan Commitment or other interests hereunder (any such Person, a “ Participant ”). In the event of a sale by Lender of a participating interest to a Participant, (a) Lender’s obligations hereunder shall remain unchanged for all purposes, (b) Borrowers shall continue to deal solely and directly with Lender in connection with Lender’s rights and obligations hereunder and (c) all amounts payable by Borrowers shall be determined as if Lender had not sold such participation and shall be paid directly to Lender. Each Borrower agrees that if amounts outstanding under this Agreement are due and payable (as a result of acceleration or otherwise), each Participant shall be deemed to have the right of set-off in respect of its participating interest in amounts owing under this Agreement and with respect to any Letter of Credit to the same extent as if the amount of its participating interest were owing directly to it as Lender under this Agreement; provided that such right of set-off shall be subject to the obligation of each Participant to share with Lender, and Lender agrees to share with each Participant, on a pro rata basis. Each Borrower also agrees that each Participant shall be entitled to the benefits of Section 4.2 or 4.4 as if it were Lender ( provided that on the date of the participation no Participant shall be entitled to any greater compensation pursuant to Section 4.2 or 4.4 than would have been paid to Lender on such date if no participation had been sold.

assistant: Participations