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: was not going to happen, alcohol-related or not.” He also testified that he did not think the alcohol slowed his reflexes of reaction time. From the evidence, there is a genuine issue of fact as to what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. Federal Paper Bd. Co. v. Kamyr, Inc., 101 N.C. App. 329, 333, 399 S.E.2d 411, 414 (“Summary judgment may not be used to resolve factual disputes which are material to the disposition of the action.”), disc. review denied, 328 N.C. 570, 403 S.E.2d 510 (1991). If a reasonable and sober person would have moved left of center to avoid the parked cars and could not have stopped in time to avoid the accident, then Mr. Logan’s actions in driving while intoxicated and driving left of center would not be an intervening cause. See id. (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we conclude there is a genuine Options: A. holding that under the ada discovery of the original act of discrimination not future confirmation of the injury or determination that the injury is unlawful is when the statute of limitations begins to run B. holding that with regard to intervening causes except when reasonable minds could not differ the question should be left for the jury to determine whether the intervening act and the resultant injury were such that the author of the original wrong could reasonably have expected them to occur as a result of his own negligent act C. holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong D. holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine E. holding that questions of proximate cause are within the exclusive domain for the jury and may only be removed when reasonable minds cannot differ

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that with regard to intervening causes except when reasonable minds could not differ the question should be left for the jury to determine whether the intervening act and the resultant injury were such that the author of the original wrong could reasonably have expected them to occur as a result of his own negligent act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any Person or circumstance is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions hereof, or the application of such provision to Persons or circumstances other than those as to which it has been held invalid or unenforceable, will remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby, so long as the economic or legal substance of the transactions contemplated hereby is not affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon such determination, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effort to agree upon a suitable and equitable substitute provision to effect the original intent of the Parties.

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: Promptly upon any officer of either Borrower becoming aware of (i) the institution of, or non-frivolous threat of, any Adverse Proceeding not previously disclosed in writing by the Borrowers to the Administrative Agent and the Lender Parties, or (ii) any material development in any Adverse Proceeding that, in the case of either sub-clause (i) or (ii) , could be reasonably expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, or seeks to enjoin or otherwise prevent the consummation of, or to recover any damages or obtain relief as a result of, the transactions contemplated hereby, written notice thereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: firearms from the house after Wells was arrested. While the district court noted that there was some inconsistency in Elsen’s testimony, it found that her testimony clearly supported the finding that at least one additional firearm was in the house. Additionally, Wells testified that he knew there were other guns in the house when he stated Elsen could “move them guns around wherever she wanted to. She did the other ones.” He also specified to Elsen which of several firearms he wanted on November 20, 2004. With this evidence of Wells’s knowledge of and control over additional firearms in the house, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Wells had constructive possession of at least one additional firearm. See United States v. Lewis, 236 F.3d 948, 950 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we affirm Options: A. holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop B. holding that the district court correctly increased a defendants offense level under ussg 2k21blb because the firearms found at his residence were under his control C. holding that an arithmetical error that increased a defendants base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines affected his substantial rights D. holding that johnson did not support the defendants collateral challenge under 28 usc 2255 to his sentence enhanced under the residual clause of the ussg E. holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court correctly increased a defendants offense level under ussg 2k21blb because the firearms found at his residence were under his control
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 this case. Defendant’s quantitative takings are relatively small— SCQuARE for Dummies contains much less material than the copyrighted SCQuARE Manual, and SCQuARE and the Continuous Promise is even less inclusive. (PL’s Mot. [67] at Exs. 1,13, and 16.) Both works are designed to be presented in approximately half an hour, as opposed to the 24 to 26 hour training required to present the material in the SCQuARE Manual. (DSMF [48] at ¶¶ 12, 27, 29.) On the other hand, SCQuARE for Dummies, and to a lesser extent SCQuARE and the Continuous Promise, incorporate, and were intended to convey, the very essence of the SCQuARE Manual. (Id.; PL’s Mot. [67] at Exs. 13 and 16.) Thus, defendant’s qualitative takings are arguably significant. See Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 565-66, 105 S.Ct. 2218 (<HOLDING>), and Cable/Home Commc’n Corp. v. Network Options: A. recognizing that the fact that a substantial portion of the infringing work was copied verbatim is evidence of the qualitative value of the copied material B. holding that the two elements of a copyright infringement claim are 1 the plaintiff owns a valid copyright right and 2 the defendants copied constituent elements of the work that are original C. holding that defendant who had copied plaintiffs perfume formula had a right to market it under defendants name because it identified to public plaintiffs product as competition D. holding that where the plagiarized material comprised 35 of the work and the commercial value of the whole was likely attributable in some part to the remaining 65 percent 50 percent of the profits were allocated to the infringing material E. holding that the third factor disfavored fair use because the defendant copied a qualitatively substantial portion of the original work even though the defendants copied only approximately 300 words out of the 200000 words in the plaintiffs work

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that the fact that a substantial portion of the infringing work was copied verbatim is evidence of the qualitative value of the copied material
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: sixty-one.” (Comply 25.) Plaintiff contends that he was “intentionally termi nated by the Defendant because of his age.” (ComplA 27.) Plaintiff also contends that “[he] was terminated by [Defendant] fifteen days following his return to work, and he was replaced by a significantly younger employee.” (Comply 36.) Plaintiff further contends that he is entitled to liquidated damages for Defendant’s “willful violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment .Act.” (Compl.f 29.) Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim of age discrimination under the ADEA. In support of its motion to dismiss, Defendant relies heavily on the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Proud v. Stone, 945 F.2d 796, 797 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Defendant suggests that this court extend the Options: A. holding that where the individual who fired the plaintiff is the same individual who hired him less than six months earlier with full knowledge of his age a strong inference exists that discrimination was not a determining factor for the adverse action taken by the employer B. holding that a prima facie case for discrimination requires the plaintiff to show that 1 he belongs to the protected age group 2 his job performance was satisfactory 3 adverse employment action was taken against him in 4 circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination C. holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity D. holding in the title vii context that the plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him know of the employees plaintiffs protected activity E. holding that if the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of age discrimination the employer must show that the discharge was based on reasonable factors other than age and if the employer meets that burden the plaintiff must show that age was a determining factor in the discharge

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where the individual who fired the plaintiff is the same individual who hired him less than six months earlier with full knowledge of his age a strong inference exists that discrimination was not a determining factor for the adverse action taken by the employer
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: has resulted in pecuniary damages, in addition to any other sentence imposed, th n mention restitution at sentencing. It is clear from the record that defendant closely read the presentence report which contained the recommended restitution amount, which is the exact amount that the judge adopted when ordering restitution. Thus, prior to sentencing, defendant was well aware of the recommended restitution amount. Nothing in the record suggests that he lacked the opportunity to object or request a hearing before, during, or after the court imposed that amou 1) (concluding when trial court addressed issue fully and did not rely on waiver, issue will be considered on appeal); State v. Matsamas, 808 P.2d 1048, 1053 (Utah 1991) (same); State v. Dominguez, 1999 UT App 343, ¶ 5, 992 P.2d 995 (<HOLDING>); State v. Parker, 872 P.2d 1041, 1044 (Utah Options: A. holding that the defendant was not deprived of a full and fair hearing on his postconviction motion by reasoning in part that the trial court set aside several days for the hearing B. holding no restitution hearing is mandated when defendant did not object to order of restitution or request a hearing C. holding defendant may appeal order stemming from full restitution hearing even though motion for hearing filed ten days after sentencing D. holding trial court without jurisdiction to impose additional restitution because more than 60 days had passed between the sentencing hearing and the second restitution hearing E. holding defendant entitled to full restitution hearing where he requested it at sentencing

assistant: The best answer is C. holding defendant may appeal order stemming from full restitution hearing even though motion for hearing filed ten days after 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir.2009). We presume that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007). McLaurin’s presentence investigation report (“PSR”) properly calculated his total offense level at thirty-one and appropriately placed him in criminal history category VI, yielding a Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months. The district court adopted the PSR’s factual findings and calculations at sentencing, afforded counsel an opportunity to argue regarding an appropriate sentence, afforded McLaurin an opportunity to allocute, considered the § 3553(a) factors before imposing McLaurin’s sentence, and thoroughly explained its rationale for imposing McLaurin’s particular sentence. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations Options: A. holding that district court must conduct individualized assessment based on particular facts of each case B. recognizing that the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it and that the individualized assessment must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and be adequate to permit meaningful appellate review C. holding that while the gsr is a valuable starting point the sentencing judge must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented D. holding that suspicion must be individualized E. holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it and that the individualized assessment must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and be adequate to permit meaningful appellate review
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: included egregious leading of witnesses, coaching his client during cross-examination and attempting to address the jury during a sidebar conference); Patchell v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 90-4745, 1992 WL 799399, at *3-6 (E.D.Pa. July 31, 1992)(setting aside $700,000.00 plaintiffs verdict and ordering new trial in part because of Barish’s “inflammatory and prejudicial” remarks). In light of this record, the District Court acted well within its discretion when it denied Barish the privilege of admission pro hac vice. The second issue raised by Jacob is whether the District Court abused its discretion when it permitted an amendment to the final pretrial order to enable Amtrak to show surveillance tapes of him. See Greate Bay Hotel & Casino v. Tose, 34 F.3d 1227, 1236 (3d Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>). Final pretrial orders may only be modified Options: A. recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion B. holding that decision to allow use of witnesses or exhibits not previously identified is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard C. holding that a district courtsfinding of equitable estoppel is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard D. holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion E. holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that decision to allow use of witnesses or exhibits not previously identified is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: And, the Dallas Court of Appeals used the Timberwalk factors in analyzing the foreseeability of targeted crime. See Stewart, 214 S.W.3d at 663 (applying Timberwalk to test foreseeability of targeted shooting of employee). Barton produced some evidence of criminal activity at the Whataburger in the years preceding Dean’s murder: in July 1997, six years before the incident, a customer was shot in the parking lot, and another customer in the drive-through lane was robbed and shot in the thigh; in July 1998, a customer was robbed in the drive-through lane; in June 1999, a customer’s purse was stolen; in July 2000, a customer reported an assault (without injury); in April 2001, a woman sought help in the Whataburger, reportin z, 220 S.W.3d 33, 40 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, pet. granted) (<HOLDING>), and Dickinson Arms-REO, L.P. v. Campbell, 4 Options: A. holding that carjacking and murder were foreseeable in light of 184 reported criminal incidents on premises during previous three years B. holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with C. holding sentence of thirtyfive years in prison with ten years probation for seconddegree murder is within the statutory maximum under 1997 statutes D. holding that murder at shopping mall was foreseeable because plaintiff produced evidence of ten violent crimes at mall in previous two years E. holding that sexual assault was not foreseeable because plaintiff produced no evidence of similar criminal acts on or near defendants premises

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that murder at shopping mall was foreseeable because plaintiff produced evidence of ten violent crimes at mall in previous two years
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. Kerr, 876 F.2d 1440, 1445 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Baron, 860 F.2d 911, 920 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1944, 104 L.Ed.2d 414 (1989); United States v. Sharon, 812 F.2d 1233, 1234 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Edwards, 800 F.2d 878, 883 (9th Cir.1986); U.S. v. Messer, 785 F.2d 832, 834 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Stewart, 770 F.2d 825, 832 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1103, 106 S.Ct. 888, 88 L.Ed.2d 922 (1986); United States v. Petitto, 767 F.2d 607, 609-10 (9th Cir.1985). In United States v. Salas, 824 F.2d 751 (9th Cir.), c 483 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 783, 102 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989) and United States v. Lawal, 810 F.2d 491, 492-93 (5th Cir.1987) and United States v. O'Neill, 767 F.2d 780, 787 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit has restricted Bradley to Options: A. holding that the requirements of rule 3700 apply to resentencing B. holding that resentencing is required C. holding resentencing is not always required D. holding that resentencing was required where the district court used an incorrect higher base level E. holding that defendant may be subject to death penalty on resentencing

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that resentencing is required
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: Georgia courts shall continue to be applied to the admission and exclusion of evidence and to procedures at trial.”); Oliver v. State, 329 Ga. App. 377, 381 (765 SE2d 606) (2014) (declining to “construe OCGA §§ 24-4-404 and 24-4-405 as a modification of Georgia’s long-standing requirement that a defendant must first make a prima facie showing of self-defense before requiring a trial court to determine whether evidence pertaining to the victim’s character is admissible”); John D. Hadden, Georgia Law of Evidence § 1:1 (“[Ejven where the federal E2d 80) (1994); accord Brooks v. State, 311 Ga. App. 857, 860 (2) (717 SE2d 490) (2011). 32 Brooks, 311 Ga. App. at 860 (2) (punctuation omitted); accord Freeman, 264 Ga. at 277; see also Kimmel v. State, 261 Ga. 332, 334 (2) (404 SE2d 436) (1991) (<HOLDING>). 33 Freeman, 264 Ga. at 278; accord Newsome v. Options: A. holding that trial court did not err in declining to accept jurys first verdict when form stated that the jury found the defendant undecided and trial courts interpretation of the verdict form to mean that the jury was either not unanimous or had not decided yet whether defendant was guilty or not guilty was reasonable and thus trial court properly instructed jury to continue deliberating B. holding that upon objection to the form of the verdict trial court did not err in returning jury for further deliberations C. holding that a district court did not err by submitting a special verdict form to the jury this particular verdict form did not specify a standard of proof D. holding jury trial waiver valid although district court did not inform defendant of right to unanimous verdict E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trial court did not err in declining to accept jurys first verdict when form stated that the jury found the defendant undecided and trial courts interpretation of the verdict form to mean that the jury was either not unanimous or had not decided yet whether defendant was guilty or not guilty was reasonable and thus trial court properly instructed jury to continue deliberating
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 Borrowers hereby affirms and again makes the representations and warranties set forth in Section 5 of the Loan Agreement as of the date of this Amendment, except to the extent that any such representations and warranties refer specifically to an earlier date.

assistant: Warranties
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 hereunder will be in writing and sent by certified mail, hand delivery, overnight delivery or fax, if sent to Chardan, to the address set forth on the first page hereof, fax number 646-465-9091, Attention: Jonathan Schechter, and if sent to the Company, to the address on the first page hereof, fax number , Attention: Executive Chairman. Notices sent by certified mail shall be deemed received five days thereafter, notices sent by hand delivery or overnight delivery shall be deemed received on the date of the relevant written record of receipt, and notices delivered by fax shall be deemed received as of the date and time printed thereon by the fax machine.

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: No failure or delay on the part of Rogers in the exercise of any power or right, and no course of dealing between LEI and Rogers shall operate as a waiver of any power or right, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any power or right preclude any further or other exercise of that power or right or the exercise of any other power or right. The remedies provided for in this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any remedies that may be available to Rogers at law or in equity. Any waiver of any provision of this Agreement, and any consent to any departure by LEI from the terms of any provision of this Agreement, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which the waiver or consent was given.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: instruction was “a powerful indictment of [Smith’s] case and arguments.” She claims that there was no way to cure the effect of this instruction. We disagree. The trial court could have made any error harmless by clarifying its instruction to allow the jury to consider the evidence that Smith claims should not have been excluded. Smith therefore had to object to preserve error on this ground, and she did not do so. Accordingly, we overrule her second issue. Having overruled both of Smith’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. WALKER, J. filed a dissenting opinion. 1 . See Tex.R. Civ. P. 286; Goode v. Ramey, 48 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1932, writ ref'd). 2 . See Pate v. Texline Feed Mills, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 238, 245 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>); see also Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 729 Options: A. holding that by not objecting the appellants had waived any error in the trial courts correction of typographical errors in the charge B. holding that the plain error review provided for in ocga 17858 is waived where the defendant requested the charge in question and made no objection to the charge at trial C. holding appellant waived issue on appeal by not objecting to or protesting the motion to strike before trial court D. holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge E. holding that we ordinarily review jury instruction challenges for correction of errors at law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that by not objecting the appellants had waived any error in the trial courts correction of typographical errors in the charge
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: Fourth, if the claimant’s “severe impairment” is not listed in Appendix 1, the ALJ determines whether the claimant maintains the RFC to perform the work that she performed prior to the onset of her impairment (“past work”). Finally, at step five, if the claimant is unable to perform past work, or has no previous work history, the ALJ ascertains whether there is other work that the claimant is capable of performing. See Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir.1982) (per curiam); Morillo, 150 F.Supp.2d at 545. The burden lies with the claimant to prove the requirements of the first four steps, but shifts to the Commissioner at step five. See Berry, 675 F.2d at 467; see also Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir.1996); Aubeuf v. Schweiker, 649 F.2d 107, 112 (2d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Where a claimant suffers Options: A. holding claimant suffered permanent total disability where functional disability was only twentyfive or thirty percent claimant was fiftynine years of age claimant had little or no education and the injury kept the claimant from performing physical work B. holding that before terminating benefits the plan should have obtained a vocational experts opinion to determine if claimant is presently capable in light of his physical impairment to perform any occupation and observing that claimant met his burden when he proved his disability initially C. holding that when the claimant has established that his impairment prevents him from returning to his previous employment the burden shifts to the commissioner who must produce evidence to show the existence of alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy and which the claimant could perform considering not only his physical and mental capability but also his age education experience and training D. holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law E. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when the claimant has established that his impairment prevents him from returning to his previous employment the burden shifts to the commissioner who must produce evidence to show the existence of alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy and which the claimant could perform considering not only his physical and mental capability but also his age education experience and training
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: bear the burden in a hearing before the federal habeas court of proving petitioner’s competence at the time of his trial). In determining whether a meaningful hearing is possible, courts look to: (1) [t]he passage of time, (2) the availability of contemporaneous medical evidence, including medical records and prior competency determinations, (3) any statements by the defendant in the trial record, and (4) the. availability of individuals and trial witnesses, both experts and non-experts, who were in a position to interact with defendant before and during trial, including the trial judge, counsel for both the government and defendant, and jail officials. McGregor v. Gibson, 248 F.3d 946, 962-63 (10th Cir.2001) (en banc) (internal citations omitted); see also Nichols, 56 F.3d at 415 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the lapse of time is certainly Options: A. holding that the defendant could appeal the district courts order granting a new trial because his right not to be subjected to a second trial for the same offense could not be remedied once the second trial has taken place B. holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal C. holding in a case considering whether the trial court should have conducted a competency hearing sua sponte that an appellate court may only consider those facts which were before the court when the trial commenced D. holding that even if it could be considered retrospective hearing conducted by trial court on second day of trial was consistent with due process given the lack of a lapse in time the fact that the psychologist who testified at the hearing had interviewed petitioner and prepared a report five weeks before trial and the trial courts direct observation and question of petitioner just before the trial E. holding a pretrial hearing on the waiver of counsel conducted three weeks before trial was the start of the trial stage where there were no changes between the pretrial hearing and the trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that even if it could be considered retrospective hearing conducted by trial court on second day of trial was consistent with due process given the lack of a lapse in time the fact that the psychologist who testified at the hearing had interviewed petitioner and prepared a report five weeks before trial and the trial courts direct observation and question of petitioner just before the trial
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: claims. However, because there are a number of such claims that can be raised in a motion for new trial, and because Griffith did not take every step available to him to raise a meaningful ineffective claim .in his case, I agree with the decision of the Court to refuse his petition for discretionary review. CLAIMS ON MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL Many claims can and should be litigated at the motion-for-new-trial stage. For example, if new evidence is discovered after the jury retires to deliberate, the defendant must allege that the newly discovered evidence entitles him to relief or the claim is waived. Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797, 807-08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see Carlisle v. St 719501, at *4 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). OUT-OF-TIME MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Although Options: A. holding that aggravated assault was not a lesser included offense in prosecution for armed burglary attempted robbery and use of a firearm in the com mission of a felony because the allegation in the information that the accused carried a firearm was insufficient to charge the elements of aggravated assault B. holding that failure to give lesserincluded charge of simple assault as lesserincluded offense of aggravated assault on police officer was reversible error C. holding that counsel was deficient when he failed to object to error in jury charge referring to aggravated assault when the charge was assault on a public servant D. holding charge of kidnapping multiplicitous with aggravated assault because it was one continuous act of force E. holding that consent is not a defense to the charge of second degree assault where the assault occurred in the context of a prison fight between inmates

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that counsel was deficient when he failed to object to error in jury charge referring to aggravated assault when the charge was assault on a public servant
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: welfare, or morals of the public. 5. Whether the regulation is arbitrarily and capriciously applied. 6. The extent to which the regulation curtails investment-backed expectations. In Graham, the supreme court held that the denial of a permit to destroy 1800 acres of black mangroves, leaving the owner with 2800 acres and reducing by half the number of housing units the owner intended to build, was not a taking, but was instead a valid exercise of police power to prevent a public harm. In contrast to the facts in Graham, the owner sub judice was left with no economically viable uses of the land. Even a regulation that complies with the standards for the exercise of police power may still result in a taking. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Options: A. holding that the application of a statute prohibiting subsurface mining left the coal companys rights to underground minerals worthless and constituted a taking B. holding that permit denial constituted a categorical taking C. holding that the federal governments seizure and operation of a coal mine to prevent a coal miners strike constituted a taking D. holding that denial of mining companys bond release and issuance of compliance order constituted adversary adjudications E. holding that requirement that fee be paid to preserve unpatented mining claims was not a taking

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the application of a statute prohibiting subsurface mining left the coal companys rights to underground minerals worthless and constituted a taking
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 a third party claims that an application infringes another party 's intellectual property rights , as between the app provider and under armour , under armour will be responsible for the investigation , defense , settlement and discharge of any such intellectual property infringement claim to the extent required by these terms ;

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: Such Debtor will not create, incur, or suffer to exist any Lien on the Collateral except (i) the security interest created by this Security Agreement, and (ii) other Liens permitted pursuant to the Indenture.

assistant: Liens
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 Borrower nor Owner is a party to any agreement or instrument or subject to any restriction which might materially and adversely affect Borrower or any Individual Owner, any Individual Property or the Collateral, or Borrower’s or Owner’s business, properties or assets, operations or condition, financial or otherwise. Neither Borrower nor any Individual Owner is in default in the performance, observance or fulfillment of any of the obligations, covenants or conditions contained in any Permitted Encumbrance or any other agreement or instrument to which it is a party or by which it or any Individual Property or the Collateral is bound, or with respect to any order or decree of any court or any order, regulation or demand of any Governmental Authority, which default (individually or when aggregated with any and all such defaults) is reasonably likely to have consequences that would materially and adversely affect the condition (financial or other) or operations of Borrower or any Individual Owner or their respective properties or is reasonably likely to have consequences that would materially and adversely affect its performance hereunder.

assistant: 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Clouse, the Arkansas Court of Appeals held that service had been completed for purposes of the savings statute when a process server served the defendant’s wife and office manager at the defendant’s office after she represented herself as her husband’s agent, but in fact was not. 274 S.W.3d at 345-46. Here, the Barners’ attorney sent the complaint and summons for T/C LLC by certified mail to the wrong registered agent, which accepted service on T/C LLC’s behalf and sent a return receipt to the Barners’ attorney showing that service had been completed. This case is much closer to Cole and Clouse than to cases in which the Arkansas courts have held that the savings statute did not apply. See, e.g., Posey v. St. Bernard’s Healthcare, Inc., 365 Ark. 154, 226 S.W.3d 757, 761, 765-66 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Hicks v. Clark, 316 Ark. 148, 870 S.W.2d 750, Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs did not complete service for purposes of the savings statute when they served the defendant with a complaint signed by an unlicensed attorney a nullity under arkansas law and made no attempt to serve the defendant with the amended complaint B. holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations C. holding defendant waived complaint D. holding that the plaintiff did not complete service when she made no attempt to serve the defendant within the time required by the arkansas procedural rules E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the plaintiffs did not complete service for purposes of the savings statute when they served the defendant with a complaint signed by an unlicensed attorney a nullity under arkansas law and made no attempt to serve the defendant with the amended complaint
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: Upon Ex-Im Bank’s payment of a Claim to Lender in connection with the Loan Facility pursuant to the Master Guarantee Agreement, Ex-Im Bank may assume all rights and remedies of Lender under the Loan Documents and may enforce any such rights or remedies against Borrower, the Collateral and any Guarantors. Borrower shall hold Ex-Im Bank and Lender harmless from and indemnify them against any and all liabilities, damages, claims, costs and losses incurred or suffered by either of them resulting from (a) any materially incorrect certification or statement knowingly made by Borrower or its agent to Ex-Im Bank or Lender in connection with the Loan Facility, this Agreement, the Loan Authorization Agreement or any other Loan Documents or (b) any material breach by Borrower of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Loan Authorization Agreement or any of the other Loan Documents. Borrower also acknowledges that any statement, certification or representation made by Borrower in connection with the Loan Facility is subject to the penalties provided in Article 18 U.S.C. Section 1001.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, each party to this agreement hereby irrevocably waives all right to trial by jury in any action, proceeding or counterclaim arising out of or relating to this agreement.

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: nonprofit organizations from selling merchandise in the Fisherman’s Wharf or Union Square areas of San Francisco without a peddler’s permit. Id. at 1060-61. These organizations argued that their conduct of informing individuals of their causes and at the same time selling merchandise affixed with their messages was speech fully protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 1063. Gaudiya determined that full First Amendment protection applies to the sale of merchandise so long as the “sale of merchandise [ ] is inextricably intertwined with a statement carrying a religious, political, philosophical or ideological message,” and that the non-profit organizations’ activities fell within this definition. Id. at 1064-66; see also Perry v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 121 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); One World One Family Now v. City & Cnty. of Options: A. holding that independent contractor claiming denial of public contract because of political affiliation was not protected by first amendment B. holding that regulations forcing mushroom producers to fund generic advertising violated the first amendment even though they did not compel the expression of political or ideological views C. holding that religious and political groups sale of merchandise and literature was fully protected D. holding that independent contractor claiming loss of and denial of contracts because of political affiliation was not protected by first amendment E. holding that the sale of music buttons and bumper stickers bearing political religious and ideological messages was fully protected by the first amendment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the sale of music buttons and bumper stickers bearing political religious and ideological messages was fully protected by the first 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on the need for national uniformity. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a); Allis-Chalmers Corp., 471 U.S. at 210-13, 105 S.Ct. 1904. The Sixth Circuit has held that a claim for the denial of benefits under an ERISA plan that is established by a collective bargaining agreement may be brought under either ERISA, the LMRA, or both statutes. Biros v. Spalding-Evenflo Co., Inc., 934 F.2d 740, 742 (6th Cir.1991). Therefore, the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs ERISA claim is preempted by the LMRA is without merit. The cases cited by the defendant that find LMRA preemption of state law claims and those dealing with hybrid section 301 claims do not provide guidance on this issue because they do not involve claims asserted under ERISA. See DeCoe v. General Motors Corp., 32 F.3d 212 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. General Motors Corp., 939 F.2d 380 Options: A. holding claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress not shown where consensual sexual relations involved B. holding that lmra preempted plaintiffs state law claims against employer for sexual harassment slander tortious interference with economic relations conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress C. holding plaintiffs state law claims of inter alia tortious interference with contract are preempted by section 301 of lmra D. holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim E. recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that lmra preempted plaintiffs state law claims against employer for sexual harassment slander tortious interference with economic relations conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress
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 SECOND AMENDMENT AND ANY CLAIM, CONTROVERSY OR DISPUTE ARISING UNDER OR RELATED TO THIS SECOND AMENDMENT, WHETHER IN TORT, CONTRACT (AT LAW OR IN EQUITY) OR OTHERWISE, SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

assistant: Governing Laws