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: in the underlying felony and demonstrates a reckless indifference to human life. 481 U.S. at 157-58, 107 S.Ct. 1676. If the death penalty is not disproportionate for this type of defendant, it follows inexorably that the death penalty is not disproportionate for Sampson — a defendant who (the jury found) intentionally murdered his victims. In all events, neither Tison nor En-mund was concerned with the evaluation of a specific aggravating factor. The im~ plausibility of Sampson’s attempted application of these cases to an aggravating factor is underscored by the fact that the Supreme Court implicitly has approved the use of other aggravating factors not directly related to a capital defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime. See, e.g., Zant, 462 U.S. at 879, 103 S.Ct. 2733 (<HOLDING>). We therefore reject Sampson’s claim that the Options: A. holding that consideration of hypothetical aggravating factors and criminal history is inappropriate when determining whether prior offense constitutes felony B. holding that escape from secure custody is a violent felony C. holding that felony conviction for which imposition of sentence was stayed could be counted as prior felony conviction under sentencing guidelines D. recognizing the validity of aggravating factors such as escape from confinement and prior felony conviction E. holding that a prior nonarizona conviction to be used as a prior felony conviction under the statute must both be for an offense that would constitute a felony in arizona and be classified as a felony in the other jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the validity of aggravating factors such as escape from confinement and prior felony conviction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Bealieau, 2008 WL 4372761, *4 (D.Mass.2008) (finding Garcetti inapplicable to “public officials”); Miller v. Town of Hull, Mass., 878. F.2d 523, 530 (1st Cir.1989) (stating that the court had “no difficulty in finding that the act of voting on public issues by a member of a public agency or board comes within, the freedom of speech guarantee of the first amendment” in a retaliatory discharge claim by a board member, although additionally noting that a State statute permitted removal only for “inefficiency,, neglect of duty or misconduct in office”). Other federal courts have rejected arguments based on Bond or Miller, however, the facts of those cases distinguish them from the holdings of Bond and Miller. See Shields v. Charter Tp. of Comstock, 617 F.Supp.2d 606 (W.D.Mich.2009) (<HOLDING>); Rash-Aldridge v. Ramirez, 96 F.3d 117, 119 Options: A. holding that an association board could assess the members without a member vote to pay for a vertical seawall to protect the common elements from storm damage because if work was necessary board authority was sufficient B. recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board C. holding that a town board could prevent an elected member from speaking at a town meeting where the board member could not identify any topic of discussion he was prevented from exploring during the meeting of the board to discuss the same issues where he was given ample time to speak D. holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings E. holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a town board could prevent an elected member from speaking at a town meeting where the board member could not identify any topic of discussion he was prevented from exploring during the meeting of the board to discuss the same issues where he was given ample time to speak
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 SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS MADE AND TO BE PERFORMED IN SUCH STATE, EXCLUDING CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF SUCH STATE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF A JURISDICTION OTHER THAN SUCH STATE.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: notwithstanding the above , we will not make use of any of your user-generated content in a manner that is inconsistent with the privacy settings you establish within our services .

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: The Options are granted to Grantee under the A-Mark 2014 Stock Award and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which has previously been delivered to Grantee and/or is available upon request to the General Counsel of A-Mark. All of the applicable terms, conditions and other provisions of the Plan are incorporated by reference herein. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement but not defined herein shall have the same meanings as in the Plan. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this document and mandatory provisions of the Plan, the provisions of the Plan govern. By accepting the grant of the Options, Grantee agrees to be bound by all of the terms and provisions of the Plan (as presently in effect or later amended), the rules and regulations under the Plan adopted from time to time, and the decisions and determinations of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Committee") made from time to time. The Options are non-qualified stock options (not incentive stock options as defined under Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended).

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: other than a limited , personal , revocable , non-transferable , non-sublicensable license to use the game currency and virtual goods in the services only , you have no right or title in or to any such game currency or virtual goods appearing or originating in the services , or any other attributes associated with use of the services or stored within the services .

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: preempts the Lacey Act to that extent. Contrary to appellants’ assertion, nothing in the Lacey Act suggests that the Magnuson Act preempts 18 U.S.C. § Cir.1983) (stating that the rule of lenity has no application to defendant’s preemption claim where “the elements required to prove the respective statutes differ so unambiguously”). IV. Accordingly, we hold that 16 U.S.C. § 1857(1)(I), the Magnuson Act’s criminal false statement provision, does not preempt 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the general federal criminal false statement provision. Appellants’ convictions therefore are AFFIRMED. 1 . Stated another way, appellants claim that 16 U.S.C. § 1857(1)(I), as applied to the facts of this case, implicitly repealed 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Cf. United States v. Herring, 916 F.2d 1543, 1547 (llth Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The interim rule originally was effective Options: A. holding that 18 usc 1920 the misdemeanor false statement provision of the federal employees compensation act feca preempted 18 usc 1001 because 41 of feca expressly repealed all inconsistent statutes B. holding for the purposes of 18 usc 924e that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a violent felony as defined in 18 usc 924e2b C. holding that where defendant lied to a federal magistrate performing an administrative function there was a violation of 18 usc 1001 D. holding that good faith is a defense to the willful filing of false statements under 18 usc 1001 E. holding that 18 usc 1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc 1001

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 18 usc 1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc 1001
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 or your local employer shall have the power and the right to deduct or withhold, or require you to remit to the Company or to your local employer, prior to any issuance or delivery of Shares on Restricted Stock Units or Additional Restricted Stock Units, an amount sufficient to satisfy taxes imposed under the laws of any country, state, province, city or other jurisdiction, including but not limited to income taxes, capital gain taxes, transfer taxes, and social security contributions, and National Insurance Contributions, that are required by law to be withheld as determined by the Company or your local employer.

assistant: Withholdings
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 Lenders and the Administrative Agent shall have received all fees required to be paid, and all expenses for which invoices have been presented (including the reasonable fees and expenses of legal counsel), on or before the Restatement Effective Date. All such amounts shall, at the option of the Borrower, be paid (i) in cash by the Borrower on the Restatement Effective Date or (ii) with proceeds of Loans made on the Restatement Effective Date, in which case such amounts shall be reflected in the funding instructions given by the Borrower to the Administrative Agent on or before the Restatement Effective Date.

assistant: Fees
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: Donaldson had a more far-reaching effect than the statute in the case at bar, the court did not require any specific expression of legislative intent to revive expired claims beyond the plain language of the statute. Based upon our analysis of the case law, we reverse the court of appeals’ decision and decline to view revival of time-barred claims separately from other forms of retroactive application of a statute by requiring additional express language of revival over and above the requirement that intent to revive be clearly and manifestly expressed. See MinmStat. § 645.21. In so holding, however, we do recognize that constitutional or other constraints may limit the legislature’s power to enact retroactive legislation in certain circumstances. See, e.g., Traczyk, 421 N.W.2d at 301 (<HOLDING>). No such constraints restrict the Options: A. holding statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations B. holding that an accused may not complain if the statute of limitations is extended so long as the period of time originally provided therein had not run at the time of such extension because an accused does not acquire any vested right in a statute of limitations until it has operated to bar the prosecution of the offense with which he has been charged C. holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations D. holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired E. holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case

assistant: The best answer is D. holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence—Kaur’s inconsistent applications, documents, and testimony—supports the IJ’s decision; a reasonable factfinder would not have been compelled to conclude other'wise. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 780 (9th Cir. 2011). 3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. The IJ could not evaluate Kaur’s credibility based on her oral testimony and could not determine the veracity of Kaur’s documentary claims because of Kaur’s repeated invocation of her Fifth Amendment right. The IJ accorded no evidentiary weight to the written information provided by Kaur. Kaur does not point to any record evidence that compels reversal of the agency’s decision. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This Options: A. holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies B. holding that where the ij finds the petitioner to be credible his testimony must be accepted C. holding that the criminalalien bar applied to aliens cat claim that the ij failed to correctly consider interpret and weigh the evidence D. holding that although the ij did not explicitly analyze the cat claim the denial of the claim was linguistically separate from the denials of asylum and withholding under the ina E. holding substantial evidence supported the denial of cat relief where the petitioners cat claim was based on the same testimony the ij found not credible and the petitioner pointed to no other evidence that the ij should have considered

assistant: The best answer is E. holding substantial evidence supported the denial of cat relief where the petitioners cat claim was based on the same testimony the ij found not credible and the petitioner pointed to no other evidence that the ij should have considered
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: Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Agreement, the Company’s obligation to pay or provide the Executive with the payments and benefits under Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 (other than the Amounts and Benefits), and any distributions with respect to the restricted stock and stock options under Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, shall be conditioned on the Executive’s execution and failure to revoke a waiver and general release in a form generally consistent with Exhibit A hereto (subject to such changes as may be necessary at the time of execution in order to make such release enforceable) (the “ Release ”). The Company shall provide the Release to the Executive within seven days following the applicable Date of Termination. In order to receive the payments and benefits under Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 (other than the Amounts and Benefits) and the distributions with respect to the restricted stock and stock options under Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, the Executive will be required to execute and deliver the Release within 21 days after the date it is provided to him and not to revoke it within seven days following such execution and delivery. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, (i) all payments delayed pursuant to this Section, except to the extent delayed pursuant to Section 8.10.2, shall be paid to the Executive in a lump sum on the first Company payroll date on or following the 60th day after the Date of Termination, and any remaining payments due under this Agreement shall be paid or provided in accordance with the normal payment dates specified for them herein, with each such payment deemed to be a separate and distinct payment for the purposes of Code Section 409A (as defined below) and (ii) all distributions with respect to the restricted stock and stock options delayed pursuant to this Section, except to the extent delayed pursuant to Section 8.10.2, shall be distributed to the Executive on the 60th day after the Date of Termination.

assistant: Releases
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 may be provided in any additional terms , to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law , in no event will linden lab 's cumulative liability to you exceed the greater of ( i ) one hundred dollars ( u.s. $ 100.00 ) ; or ( ii ) the fees , if any , paid by you for use of the service ; provided , however , this provision will not apply if a tribunal with applicable jurisdiction finds such to be unconscionable .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: knowingly and voluntarily enter his guilty plea. The circuit court agreed, and we granted the State’s petition for an intermediate appeal. We reverse. [¶ 2.] Wolf was arrested for DUI on March 31, 2013, in Pennington County. The State filed a part II information charging Wolf with third offense DUI based on a 2005 DUI conviction in Cass County, North Dakota and a 2012 DUI conviction in Pennington County. [¶ 3.] Wolf filed a King challenge to the validity of his 2005 DUI conviction for sentence-enhancement purposes. See State v. King, 383 N.W.2d 854 (S.D.1986) (abrogated by State v. Chant, 2014 S.D. 77, 856 N.W.2d 167). Wolf argued that he had not knowingly and voluntarily entered a guilty plea on that conviction. He contended that at the time of the plea, he was not pro (9th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Custis/Chant procedural bar to Options: A. holding mississippi convictions counted as criminal history points because the defendant did not testify that he was unaware of his right to counsel or that his waiver was invalid B. recognizing that the burden to establish a valid waiver of a constitutional right is upon the prosecution C. holding that in order for a waiver of counsel to be valid the trial court must ensure that the defendants waiver of his right to counsel is done knowingly and intelligently so that the record establishes that the defendants choice is made with eyes open D. holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense E. holding that the prior conviction was valid for calculation of the defendants criminal history because his waiver of the right to counsel was valid

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the prior conviction was valid for calculation of the defendants criminal history because his waiver of the right to counsel was valid
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: Mortgagor covenants and represents that the Land and the Improvements and the use thereof presently comply with, and, except as provided in the Loan Agreement, will continue to comply with, all applicable restrictive covenants, zoning and subdivision ordinances and building codes, licenses, health and environmental laws and regulations and all other applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be effective upon delivery of this Agreement fully executed by the Seller and Purchaser, which date shall be deemed the Effective Date hereof. Either party may request that the other party promptly execute a memorandum specifying the Effective Date.

assistant: Effective Dates
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 a concealed firearm on a prior instance is relevant to a charge of possession of a firearm in his car while he sought to transport drugs.... Introduction of a prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon helped the government establish that Gomez was aware of the dangers of and law relating to concealed weapons and rebut Gomez’s claim that the gun was for an innocent purpose and its presence was mere accident or coincidence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing such evidence. 927 F.2d 1530, 1534 (11th Cir.1991) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Coleman, — F.3d - (3d Cir.2003) (“Coleman put at issue during trial whether he had knowledge of, and thus possessed, the shotgun and narcotics found in the apartment in which he resi (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 913 Options: A. holding that the introduction of evidence of previous instances in which the defendant had been present in an automobile with a shotgun were admissible under fed rules of evid 404b to show that his presence in the car with the shotgun on the occasion in question was intentional and not a mistake or accident B. holding that the sound of a television on the inside of the house and the presence of a car in the driveway were sufficient to form the basis of the reasonable belief that the suspect was in the home C. holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal D. holding that evidence of prior criminal misconduct is admissible under rule 404b to prove motive opportunity intent preparation plan knowledge identity or absence of mistake or accident E. holding that probable cause was clearly present justifying the taking of a blood sample without the defendants consent when it was established that the defendant was involved in an automobile accident and the police noticed liquor on his breath at the scene of the accident and at the hospital

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the introduction of evidence of previous instances in which the defendant had been present in an automobile with a shotgun were admissible under fed rules of evid 404b to show that his presence in the car with the shotgun on the occasion in question was intentional and not a mistake or accident
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: From and after the Effective Date, the Administrative Agent shall make all payments in respect of [the] [each] Assigned Interest (including payments of principal, interest, fees and other amounts) to [the] [each] Assignor for amounts which have accrued to but excluding the Effective Date and to [the] [each] Assignee for amounts which have accrued from and after the Effective Date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the Letter of Authorization have been duly executed and delivered by, and constitute the valid and binding obligation of, Seller, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except that (a) such enforcement may be subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws affecting creditors’ rights generally or (b) the remedy of specific performance and injunctive relief are subject to certain equitable defenses and to the discretion of the court before which any proceedings may be brought (the “ Equitable Exceptions ”). Seller has all requisite power to execute and deliver this Agreement and all other agreements and documents contemplated hereby. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and such other agreements and documents by Seller and the consummation by Seller of the Transactions have been duly authorized by Seller and no other action on the part of Seller is necessary to authorize the Transactions.

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: No failure or delay by any party in exercising any right, power or privilege under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver thereof nor shall any single or partial exercise thereof preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or privilege. The rights and remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies provided by law.

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: Cash Collateral (or the appropriate portion thereof) provided to reduce Fronting Exposure or other obligations shall be released promptly following (i) the elimination of the applicable Fronting Exposure or other obligations giving rise thereto (including by the termination of Defaulting Lender status of the applicable Lender (or, as appropriate, its assignee following compliance with Section 10.06(b)(vii) ) or (ii) the Administrative Agent’s good faith determination that there exists excess Cash Collateral; provided , however, (x) that Cash Collateral furnished by or on behalf of a Loan Party shall not be released during the continuance of a Default or Event of Default (and following application as provided in this Section 2.16 may be otherwise applied in accordance with Section 8.03 ), and (y) the Person providing Cash Collateral and the applicable L/C Issuer or Swing Line Lender, as applicable, may agree that Cash Collateral shall not be released but instead held to support future anticipated Fronting Exposure or other obligations.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the trial justice failed to give a general definition of “intercept,” defendant also objected to the fact that no definit to the jury verbatim, instructing the jurors that one who “willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire or oral communication” is guilty of this crime. He also carefully instructed the jurors that the defendant could not be convicted of this crime unless there was an interception of an “oral communication.” Thereafter, the jury found defendant guilty of violating § 11-35-21(a). In doing so, the jury necessarily found that an oral communication had been intercepted; that is, “acquired aurally * * * through the use of [an] intercepting device.” See State v. Hazard, 745 A.2d 748, 753 (R.I.2000) (<HOLDING>). Here, as the trial justice ruled in li-mine, Options: A. holding that an instructional error is harmless if no rational jury could have made its findings without also finding the omitted fact to be true B. holding that instructional error on missing element is harmless if no rational jury could have found the defendant guilty of violating the statute without also making the proper finding as to the missing element C. holding that when the jury finds facts that are so closely related to the omitted element that no rational jury could find those facts without also finding the omitted element this exercise amounts to the functional equivalent of the omitted element D. holding that error is not harmless if the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence to support a contrary finding E. holding that knowledge element could not be deemed in favor of plaintiff where defendant objected to the omission of that element from the jury charge

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when the jury finds facts that are so closely related to the omitted element that no rational jury could find those facts without also finding the omitted element this exercise amounts to the functional equivalent of the omitted element
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 two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute but one agreement. Any party to a Loan Document may rely on signatures of the parties thereto or in any notice or communication delivered pursuant thereto which are transmitted by facsimile or other electronic means as fully as if manually signed.

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: period satisfies duration element “because the duration of the permit is too short to allow full litigation before the permit expires”); Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324, 1329-30 (9th Cir.1992) (regulation “in effect for less than one year” met durational requirement). Defendants do contest that there may be a reasonable expectation that Plaintiff will confront the same action again. Defs.’ Reply at 5-6. Plaintiff argues that its litigation history with the Forest Service reflects that it will. PL’s Response at 7-8. The “capable of repetition test” is different from the one for voluntary cessation in that it examines the likelihood of the issue resurfacing, rather than the specific activity challenged. Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). For example, the expiration of Forest Service Options: A. holding res judicata applied to prevent relitigation of liability where defendant was subject to two lawsuits under different theories of liability on the same note B. holding that a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to a protected species is sufficient for issuance of an injunction under section 9 of the esa C. holdingthat endangered species act claim at issue was capable of repetition where parties have been through the same controversy many times even though previous lawsuits were about different species D. holding in suit under endangered species act that the desire to use or observe an animal species even for purely esthetic purposes is undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of standing E. holding that defendants stock options are concrete and personal because they represent a species of compensation different from the one ordinarily accumulated by corporate officers and directors

assistant: The best answer is C. holdingthat endangered species act claim at issue was capable of repetition where parties have been through the same controversy many times even though previous lawsuits were about different species
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: government’s representation is inextricably intertwined and entangled in the merits of Mr. Bolden’s claims.” This argument, however, overlooks that the Court has “consistently eschewed a case-by-case approach to deciding whether an order is sufficiently collateral.” Cunningham, 527 U.S. at 206, 119 S.Ct. 1915. Every appeal that has considered the disqualification of an entire United States Attorney’s office has found the disqualification issue to be entirely separate from the merits of the underlying case. See Whit-taker, 268 F.3d at 192 (“the [disqualification] order unquestionably resolves a jur-isprudentially important issue completely separate from the merits of the dispute concerning whether Whittaker committed mail fraud”); United States v. Vlahos, 33 F.3d 758, 761 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Caggiano, 660 F.2d 184 (6th Options: A. holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable B. holding that the disqualification order is an issue completely independent of the merits of the action C. holding disqualification was appropriate but referencing several aba formal opinions where screening prevented the disqualification of an entire firm D. holding that disqualification orders do not fall in the collateral order exception E. holding that if a motion implicates the merits of a cause of action the district court should find jurisdiction exists and treat the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiffs case

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the disqualification order is an issue completely independent of the merits of the action
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the notice provided was sufficient, see Eubanks, 385 F.3d at 898 & n. 1, or possibly misleading, see Eastman, 493 F.3d at 1158-59; Barger, 348 F.3d at 1296, and this determination must be made by the district court in the first instance. Finally, we note that even if the district court should conclude that this is an appropriate case for applying judicial estoppel, Matthews would not be preclud ed from pursuing her claims for injunctive relief. See Barger, 348 F.3d at 1297; Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1288-89 (11th Cir.2002). Matthews seeks reinstatement to her position with the Postal Service, a claim which was of no value to her bankruptcy estate and was of “no consequence to the trustee or the creditors.” Burnes, 291 F.3d at 1289; see Barger, 348 F.3d at 1297 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, any failure to disclose the Options: A. holding that the filed rate doctrine barred request for damages but did not preclude request for injunction and civil penalties B. holding that debtors request for reinstatement was not barred by judicial estoppel C. recognizing same judicial estoppel principle under kansas law D. holding that federal law applies because judicial estoppel relates to protection of the integrity of the federal judicial process E. holding that estoppel was a question of fact

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that debtors request for reinstatement was not barred by judicial estoppel
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In addition to all such rights of indemnity and subrogation as the Guarantors may have under applicable law (but subject to Section 3.03 ), the Borrowers jointly and severally agree that in the event a payment of an obligation shall be made by any Guarantor under this Agreement, the Borrowers shall indemnify such Guarantor for the full amount of such payment and such Guarantor shall be subrogated to the rights of the Person to whom such payment shall have been made to the extent of such payment.

assistant: Indemnity
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: Biotronix 2000 failed to communicate to Safety Technologies a material fact and that Safety Technologies justifiably relied upon Biotronix 2000 to communicate that fact to the plaintiff. Biotronix 2000, therefore, is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. • Prejudgment interest In its brief in support of punitive damages, Safety Technologies requests that the court order prejudgment interest. The allowance of prejudgment interest under Kansas law is a matter of judicial discretion. See K.S.A. § 16-201; Miller v. Botwin, 258 Kan. 108, 118, 899 P.2d 1004 (1995); Crawford v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 245 Kan. 724, 737, 783 P.2d 900 (1989). “The general rule in Kansas is that prejudgment interest is allowable on liquidated claims.” Miller, 258 Kan. at 11 616, 618 (D.Kan.1995) (<HOLDING>). In a fraud case, a concrete amount of money Options: A. holding that after court dismissed case at plaintiffs request notwithstanding the fact that jury had deliberated upon the case and indicated that it had reached a verdict there was no case pending in court on which a verdict could be predicated and the information which the judge got from an inspection of the petition handed to him by the foreman of the jury was information which he received as an individual and not as a judge of the court and further holding that despite violation of defendants right to receive the verdict that was purportedly reached the writing incorporated in the bill of exceptions as a verdict of the jury was in law no verdict because it was not received in court and published as required by law and was instead entirely extraneous and extrajudicial B. holding that the amount of damages in a sex discrimination case was in dispute until the court entered judgment on the jury verdict the sum was not liquidated for ksa 16 201 purposes C. holding that prejudgment interest should not be added to damages awarded for misrepresentation because the amount of damages were not liquidated or ascertainable before the verdict D. holding that because liquidated damages under the adea are punitive in nature a jurys award of state punitive damages and adea liquidated damages constitutes a double recovery and therefore reducing the total recovery by the amount of the liquidated damages award E. holding that where the amount of damages was the primary issue in dispute the plaintiffs claim for damages was not liquidated until the date the jury returned its verdict and the plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest under ksa 16 201

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the amount of damages in a sex discrimination case was in dispute until the court entered judgment on the jury verdict the sum was not liquidated for ksa 16 201 purposes
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you acknowledge and agree that headspace is authorized to charge the payment method used for ( i ) the initial annual or two year subscription fee at the rate secured at the time of purchase , and ( ii ) the renewal subscription fee ( s ) at the non-discounted rate in effect at the time of any such renewal .

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: Neither this instrument nor any term hereof may be changed, waived, discharged or terminated orally, but only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against which enforcement of the change, waiver, discharge or termination is sought.

assistant: Amendments
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: (stating that probable cause to arrest exists when officer has “reasonable ground for belief of guilt that was particularized with respect to the person to be ... seized”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the district court properly denied the motion to suppress, and we affirm the court’s judgment. We deny Holland’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED. * The Government argues that, in determining whether a seizure occurred, we should apply the "force or submission” standard set forth in California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991) (<HOLDING>). The Govern ment contends that, because Options: A. holding iowa common law touching assault met use of physical force required for enhancement under 18 usc 922g9 be cause any physical contact by necessity requires physical force to complete B. holding that 2241a1 requires actual use of force meaning use of such physical force as is sufficient to overcome restrain or injure a person C. holding that an arrest requires either physical force or where that is absent submission to the assertion of authority D. holding that an arrest may involve either 1 taking the alleged violator into exlended physical custody or 2 issuing the individual a citation and noting that when we use the word arrest in this opinion we refer to physical arrest E. holding that emotional distress requires a showing of either physical symptoms or mental illness

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an arrest requires either physical force or where that is absent submission to the assertion of authority
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: standard, but simply noted that the impact on Middletown’s contractual obligations was sufficient adverse effect on a legal interest for purposes of satisfying one of the R.C. 707.09 injunction requirements. McGee also emphasized Ohio’s policy of encouraging annexation and the “heavy burden” on parties seeking an injunction. 39 Ohio St.3d at 285, 530 N.E.2d at 903. And notably, the court distinguished between pleading “standing” under R.C. 709.07(A) and the legal requirements which must be satisfied for an injunction under R.C. 709.07(D). 39 Ohio St.3d at 286, 530 N.E.2d at 904, fn. 1. In a later decision, the Ohio Supreme Court again stressed the legislature’s desire to promote annexation. See In re Petition to Annex 320 Acres to S. Lebanon, 64 Ohio St.3d 585, 596, 597 N.E.2d 463, 470 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in a case decided the same day, the Options: A. holding the flsa does not provide the exclusive remedy for violations of its mandates B. holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment C. holding that the remedies are exclusive D. holding that rc 70907 is the exclusive remedy for challenging annexation approval E. holding that massachusetts provides an adequate remedy for challenging a real estate tax assessment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rc 70907 is the exclusive remedy for challenging annexation approval
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: Under this Agreement, each party shall be and remain liable for their own acts and omissions, and each party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against all claims, liabilities, penalties, fines, fees, causes of action (civil or regulatory), and/or other costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, that may arise against one party due to, related to, or regarding the acts or omissions of the other. Business Associate shall be liable to Encompass for all costs incurred associated with any formal HITECH Act Breach Notification required by Encompass which is caused by or due to the acts or omissions of Business Associate.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the circuit court determines that amending his petition would do substantial justice. See Maryland Rule 4-332(h); See Hunt, 443 Md. at 249-50, 116 A.3d at 483-84 (requiring petitions filed pursuant to Crim. Proc. § 8-301 to, inter alia, comply with the pleading requirement contained in Maryland Rule 4-332(d)(9)). In determining whether allowing Respondent to amend his petition would do substantial justice, the circuit court must articulate its reasoning on the record. If the circuit court concludes that Respondent may amend his petition to comply with the pleading requirement in Maryland Rule 4—332(d)(9), Respondent’s averment must allege which convictions he is “actually innocent” of, meaning which offenses he alleges he “did not commit.” See Smallwood, 451 Md. at 320, 152 A.3d at 793 (<HOLDING>); see also Maryland Rule 4—332(d)(9). Options: A. holding that only defendants who can allege they are actually innocent meaning they did not commit the crimes for which they are convicted may bring a petition for relief under crim proc 8301 B. holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense C. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not know the residence for which they obtained a warrant actually contained multiple units D. holding in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction that once federal funds are distributed to the states and obligated they cannot be recouped and that it would be impossible to award the plaintiffs the relief they request if they should eventually prevail on the merits E. holding that claims are related if they involve a common core of facts or they are based on related legal theories

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that only defendants who can allege they are actually innocent meaning they did not commit the crimes for which they are convicted may bring a petition for relief under crim proc 8301