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: on the ground; merely to allege large expenditures without actual construction on the site cannot vest zoning rights. 281 Md. at 23, 376 A.2d 505 (citations omitted). See also Prince George’s County v. Sunrise Dev. Ltd. Partnership, 330 Md. 297, 623 A.2d 1296 (1993) (finding no vesting where minor construction commenced) ; Board of County Comm’rs v. Pritchard, 312 Md. 522, 529, 540 A.2d 1139 (1988); O’Donnell v. Bassler, 289 Md. 501, 508, 425 A.2d 1003 (1981); County Council v. Carl M. Freeman Assocs., 281 Md. 70, 79-80, 376 A.2d 860 (1977); Mayor of Baltimore v. Crane, 277 Md. 198, 206, 352 A.2d 786 (1976); County Council v. District Land Corp., 274 Md. 691, 707, 337 A.2d 712 (1975); Marathon Builders, Inc. v. Montgomery County Planning Bd., 246 Md. 187, 195, 227 A2d 755 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Rockville Fuel and Feed Co. v. Gaithersburg, Options: A. holding rezoning is at least fairly debatable where the evidence on traffic was conflicting B. holding that an appellant forfeits all issues not raised and argued in initial brief on appeal C. holding that issues not argued are abandoned D. holding innocent purchaser contention was without merit where appellant argued it should not be subject to rezoning classification E. holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension

assistant: The best answer is D. holding innocent purchaser contention was without merit where appellant argued it should not be subject to rezoning classification
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 Plan, the exercise of Options and SARs and the obligations of the Company to issue or transfer shares of Company Stock under Grants shall be subject to all applicable laws and regulations, and to approvals by any governmental or regulatory agency as may be required. With respect to persons subject to section 16 of the Exchange Act, it is the intent of the Company that the Plan and all transactions under the Plan comply with all applicable provisions of Rule 16b-3 or its successors under the Exchange Act. In addition, it is the intent of the Company that Incentive Stock Options comply with the applicable provisions of section 422 of the Code and that, to the extent applicable, Grants comply with the requirements of section 409A of the Code. To the extent that any legal requirement of section 16 of the Exchange Act or section 422 or 409A of the Code as set forth in the Plan ceases to be required under section 16 of the Exchange Act or section 422 or 409A of the Code, that Plan provision shall cease to apply. The Committee may revoke any Grant if it is contrary to law or modify a Grant to bring it into compliance with any valid and mandatory government regulation.

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: The Award is subject to all interpretations, amendments, rules and regulations that may from time to time be promulgated and adopted pursuant to the Plan. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Plan and any other document, the provisions of the Plan shall control. This Agreement and the Plan contain the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supersede all prior communications, representations and negotiations in respect thereto. No change, modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same be in writing and signed by the parties hereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: amount of time. And, while Movants cite to their jury demand as a reason to withdraw the reference now, the Court may withdraw the reference if and when a trial is necessary, rather than at this early stage of deciding a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court directs that this adversary proceeding be now returned to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order. SO ORDERED. 1 . The Bankruptcy Court determined that the Trustee’s fraudulent conveyance claims were statutorily core, and that the unjust enrichment claims were non-core as pled, without prejudice to the Trustee to replead. See In re Refco Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 07-03060(RDD) (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2008); see also In re Refco Inc. (Memphis Holdings), 461 B.R. 181, 184 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2011) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, since neither party contends the Options: A. holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment B. holding that unjust enrichment claim could prevail contrary to the ucc priority system C. holding that trustees unjust enrichment claim against memphis holdings defendants was statutorily core D. holding that unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory E. holding that a claim for unjust enrichment should not be dismissed because the court may find that the express contract was no longer in force

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that trustees unjust enrichment claim against memphis holdings defendants was statutorily core
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: already become necessary for the resolution of disputed factual issues. See Fisher v. City of Memphis, 234 F.3d 312, 317 (6th Cir.2000) (finding no error in instructions charging the jury to consider, in a qualified immunity case, whether the defendant's use of deadly force had been objectively reasonable); McCoy v. Hernandez, 203 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2000) (stating that, if the qualified immunity issue is not decided until trial, it "goes to the jury which must then determine the objective reasonableness of the officers’ conduct”); Ortega v. O’Connor, 146 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir.1998) (finding that a district court’s submission of the objective reasonableness question to the jury “constituted an appropriate and proper instruction”); Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d 642, 650 (2d Cir.1994) Options: A. holding that antitrust lawsuit in which a jury after a monthlong trial found for the defendants should never have reached the jury and affirming the district court on the alternative ground that it should have granted defendants pretrial motion for summary judgment B. holding that jury should decide whether plaintiffs testimony proved reasonable and necessary medical expenses C. holding that under the substantial evidence standard the reviewing court must decide whether on this record it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the agencys conclusion D. holding that a district court should have let the jury decide whether it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe that they were acting within the bounds of the law E. holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a district court should have let the jury decide whether it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe that they were acting within the bounds of the law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n. 4 (noting that a failure to establish eligibility for asylum on the merits necessarily entails ineligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief). We deny Salazar-Hinca-pie’s petition for review. PETITION DENIED. 1 . In addition to Marta Dora Salazar-Hinca-pie, her husband, Oscar Antonio Yusty, and her children, Sara Yusty and Jose Ignacio Yusty, are also involved in this appeal. 2 . As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider several issues raised by Salazar-Hin-capie. As the BIA limited its ruling to the adverse credibility determination, her argument regarding internal relocation within Colombia is not properly before us. See Shkambi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 584 F.3d 1041, 1049 n. 5 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, we must decide the petition on Options: A. holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte B. holding appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review bia order affirming ijs denial of asylum because alien did not file petition for review within 30 days of bia order as required by 8 usc 1252b1 C. holding that we will not review portions of an ijs ruling that are not adopted by the bia D. holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted E. holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that we will not review portions of an ijs ruling that are not adopted by the bia
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party’s obligations under this Section 3.01 shall survive the resignation or replacement of the Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Lender or the L/C Issuer, the termination of the Aggregate Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all other Obligations.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that conclusion, the Eighth Circuit relied on a number of factors: (1) that “the central purpose of the enhanced underwriting program is not to promote the views of the donors;” (2) that the station exercised editorial control over the content of acknowledgment scripts; (3) that the literal speaker was a KWMU employee, not a Klan representative; and (4) that ultimate responsibility for the contents of the broadcast rested with KWMU, not with the Klan. Id. at 1093-94. The Ninth Circuit relied on similar factors in Downs, in which the court rejected a public school teacher’s claim that he had a First Amendment right to respond to his school’s recognition of Gay and Lesbian Awareness month by posting anti-homosexuality materials on a school bulletin board. See Downs, 228 F.3d at 1011-12 (<HOLDING>). Due to the “special characteristics of the Options: A. holding school boards are persons within the meaning of the fifth amendment due process clause B. holding on state constitutional grounds that school boards lack authority to arbitrate C. holding that content of bulletin boards was government speech in that boards were used to express school policy that access was limited to faculty and staff that postings were subject to the oversight of the school principals that the school district had made no affirmative effort to disclaim responsibility for the boards content and that the boards were the property and responsibility of the school and the district D. holding that the new mexico school district and their governing boards are not arms of the state entitled to eleventh amendment immunity E. holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that content of bulletin boards was government speech in that boards were used to express school policy that access was limited to faculty and staff that postings were subject to the oversight of the school principals that the school district had made no affirmative effort to disclaim responsibility for the boards content and that the boards were the property and responsibility of the school and the district
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: buys, and I didn’t have a source at that point that was willing to do that. So that was not an option for me. Therefore, the way I handled it was what I felt to be the only option at that point. [MUCHNICKI]: Which is the stop—stopping the van? [MYERS]: Yes. 6 . At some point during the traffic stop, Agent Myers recognized Marroquin from an earlier investigation and prosecution for passport fraud and identity theft. (Id. at 164). 7 . The Court exercises its discretion in considering Pacheco’s affidavit, but assigns it less weight than live testimony given that he did not testify at the suppression hearing, thereby denying the Government the ability to cross-examine him. See United States v. Ramos, 591 F.Supp.2d 93, 113 (D. Mass. 2008). 8 . At one point, Marroquin , 1147 (8th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Pacheco also argued that his arrest was Options: A. holding that routine booking questions do not violate the constitutional protection against self incrimination as they do not constitute interrogation B. holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody C. holding that even if defendant were in custody a miranda violation would not require suppression of his fingerprints because the fifth amendments self incrimination clause offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting quotation omitted D. holding that miranda violation did not require suppression of immigrants fingerprints E. holding that the fifth amendment did not require the suppression of the physical fruits of a miranda violation where the statement was voluntary

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that even if defendant were in custody a miranda violation would not require suppression of his fingerprints because the fifth amendments self incrimination clause offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting quotation omitted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (“[Wjhere the Federal Government takes on or has control or supervision over tribal monies or properties, the fiduciary relationship normally exists with respect to such monies or properties ... even though nothing is said expressly in the authorizing or underlying statute.... ”). But this does not make the invocation of the United States’s name a mere formality. Indeed, in a recent case involving § 81, the Seventh Circuit rejected a standing challenge based on the non-Indian relators’ having no connection whatsoever with the contracts, because the United States was the plaintiff, and it had standing. See United States ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Dev. Corp., 49 F.3d 1208, 1211-15 (7th Cir.1995); cf. United States ex rel. Mosay v. Buffalo Bros. Management, Inc., 20 F.3d 739 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Congress wished to protect tribes by aligning Options: A. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue B. recognizing that a buyer may sue for specific performance of a realestate contract C. holding that tribal members may sue as relators D. holding plaintiff may sue federal agents for money damages for violation of his constitutional rights E. holding that employers have standing to sue

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that tribal members may sue as relators
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: officer. See United States v. Watson, 599 F.2d 1149, 1156 (2d Cir.) ([T]he speedy trial right under the Sixth Amendment attaches not when a sealed indictment is filed but when it is unsealed), on reh’g op. replaced, 690 F.2d 15 (1979), modified, en banc, sub nom. United States v. Muse, 633 F.2d 1041 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 984, 101 S.Ct. 1522, 67 L.Ed.2d 820 (1981); see also United States v. Vaughn, 510 F.Supp. 206, 209 (D.N.J.1981) ("The [speedy trial] statute ... plainly and unambiguously require^] that trial commence within seventy days of the indictment being made public (i.e. unsealed) or the defendant's appearance before a judicial officer of this District, whichever date last occurs") (emphasis in original); cf. United States v. Ramey, 791 F.2d 317, 322 (4th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the current speedy trial figure may be Options: A. holding that the statute of limitations does not run on a debtorinpossession 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 an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired D. holding that a sealed indictment handed down before statute of limitations has run is valid even if it is not unsealed until after the limitations period has expired E. 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

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a sealed indictment handed down before statute of limitations has run is valid even if it is not unsealed until after the limitations period has 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower and Subsidiary has filed all federal, state and local tax returns and other reports that it is required by law to file, and has paid, or made provision for the payment of, all Taxes upon it, its income and its Properties that are due and payable, except to the extent being Properly Contested. The provision for Taxes on the books of each Borrower and Subsidiary is adequate for all years not closed by applicable statutes, and for its current Fiscal Year.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Boeing, since plaintiff was promoted to the P & A position in July 1990, over 2 years before she filed her administrative claim, any alleged sex discrimination had to occur prior to July 1990, well outside the 300-day statutory period. Plaintiff does not respond directly to Boeing’s argument. Rather, she contends that her failure to promote claim is part of a “continuing violation,” a series of discriminatory acts and a conspiracy of discrimination on the part of Boeing. (Doc. 47, p. 9). The “continuing violation” doctrine is simply not applicable to this case. That doctrine involves circumstances in which a series of connected violations occur both before and during the statutory period. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 380-81, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 1125, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Pitre v. Western Elec. Co., Inc., 975 F.2d Options: A. holding in the context of the 90day period during which a plaintiff must bring suit after receiving a right to sue letter that in the absence of a recognized equitable consideration the court cannot extend the limitations period by even one day B. holding that the charge was timely when filed within the statute of limitations period even though served after the period C. holding that the limitations period for 1983 actions arising in ohio is the twoyear period found in ohio rev code 230510 and that the limitations period starts to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action D. holding in the discrimination context that a plaintiff may challenge incidents which occurred outside the statute of limitations period if the various acts of discrimination constitute a continuing pattern of discrimination E. holding discriminatory incidents which occur outside the limitations period are actionable where a plaintiff challenges not just one incident but an unlawful practice that continues into the limitations period

assistant: The best answer is E. holding discriminatory incidents which occur outside the limitations period are actionable where a plaintiff challenges not just one incident but an unlawful practice that continues into the limitations period
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: under the old Maryland default judgment rule. See Banegura v. Taylor, 312 Md. 609, 620, 541 A.2d 969 (1988) (concluding that trial judge would have been justified in refusing to strike a default judgment, even if it was timely filed, because the defendant f this case, it is nonetheless instructive. Based on the facts of this case and the clear policy regarding the treatment of default judgments under Maryland law, this Court concludes as a matter of law that a Maryland appellate court would have reversed Judge Angeletti’s decision to enter a default judgment. It is undisputed that Salomon had several meritorious defenses in the Jerome litigation, including res judicata, statute of limitations, and a general release. See Burris v. Richards, 79 Md.App. 554, 565, 558 A.2d 750 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the only real issue is whether it would Options: A. holding that the three month limitation of faa 12 on a motion to vacate an award did not apply to a state court motion to vacate because the procedural aspects of the faa are confined to federal cases B. holding that limitations is a meritorious defense for the purposes of a motion to vacate under rule 2613 C. holding that a defendant who fails to raise statute of limitations defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss or by requesting a jury instruction on limitations if there is some evidence that the prosecution is limitationsbarred waives that defense D. holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense E. holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that limitations is a meritorious defense for the purposes of a motion to vacate under rule 2613
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 GUARANTOR HEREBY KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW ANY RIGHTS IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION BASED HEREON, OR ANY COURSE OF CONDUCT, COURSE OF DEALING, STATEMENTS (WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN) OR ACTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER, ANY ISSUER, ANY OTHER SECURED PARTY OR ANY GUARANTOR IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. EACH GUARANTOR ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT IT HAS RECEIVED FULL AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PROVISION AND THAT THIS PROVISION IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, EACH LENDER, EACH ISSUER AND EACH OTHER SECURED PARTY ENTERING INTO THE LOAN DOCUMENTS.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Parties to this Agreement hereby waives any right to a jury trial with respect to any claim, action, suit or proceeding made or brought by one of the Parties against the other in connection with or arising under 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: (Fed.Cir.2004) (“Because the Tucker Act itself does not provide a substantive cause of action, ... a plaintiff must find elsewhere a money-mandating source upon which to base a suit.”). In this case, the United States Court of Federal Claims has “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim by or against, or dispute with, a contractor arising under ... the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613, (‘Contract Disputes Act’) including a dispute concerning ... rights in tangible or intangible property, compliance with cost accounting standards, and other non-monetary disputes on which a decision of the contracting officer has been issued under section 6 of that Act.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2); see Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1260, 1270 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Section 6 of the Contract Disputes Act Options: A. holding that the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to grant nonmonetary relief in connection with contractor claims including claims requesting an interpretation of contract terms B. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute C. recognizing that this amendment provided the united states court of federal claims with jurisdiction over a nonmonetary substitute for monetary relief D. holding that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act over claims to social security benefits E. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort including fraud

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to grant nonmonetary relief in connection with contractor claims including claims requesting an interpretation of contract terms
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall (a) by 9:00 a.m. (New York City time) on the Trading Day immediately following the date hereof, issue a press release disclosing the material terms of the transactions contemplated hereby, and (b) file a Current Report on Form 8-K, including the Transaction Documents as exhibits thereto, with the SEC within the time required by the Exchange Act. From and after the issuance of such press release, the Company represents to the Purchasers that it shall have publicly disclosed all material, non-public information delivered to any of the Purchasers by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any of their respective officers, directors, employees or agents in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents. In addition, effective upon the issuance of such press release, the Company acknowledges and agrees that any and all confidentiality or similar obligations under any agreement, whether written or oral, between the Company, any of its Subsidiaries or any of their respective officers, directors, agents, employees or Affiliates on the one hand, and any of the Purchasers or any of their Affiliates on the other hand, shall terminate. The Company and each Purchaser shall consult with each other in issuing any other press releases with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby, and neither the Company nor any Purchaser shall issue any such press release nor otherwise make any such public statement without the prior consent of the Company, with respect to any press release of any Purchaser, or without the prior consent of each Purchaser, with respect to any press release of the Company, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld or delayed, except if such disclosure is required by law, in which case the disclosing party shall promptly provide the other party with prior notice of such public statement or communication. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall not publicly disclose the name of any Purchaser, or include the name of any Purchaser in any filing with the SEC or any regulatory agency or Trading Market, without the prior written consent of such Purchaser, except (a) as required by federal securities law in connection with the filing of final Transaction Documents with the SEC and (b) to the extent such disclosure is required by law or Trading Market regulations, in which case the Company shall provide the Purchasers with prior notice of such disclosure permitted under this clause (b).

assistant: Publicity
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: analysis in Lara to this case because, in Lara, the officers conducted the protective sweep after finding and arresting the defendant inside the house while investigating a violent crime that “had just occurred” inside of the house. Id. at 511, 514, 797 P.2d at 300, 303. {26} In contrast to the facts in Lara, the agents here were not investigating a violent crime that “had just occurred” inside the house or even within New Mexico. Instead, they were merely serving an arrest warrant for a crime that had taken place in Mississippi at some unspecified point in the past. In any event, Lara does not compel a conclusion that a protective sweep is justified based on the serious nature of the crime being investigated. See, e.g., United States v. Hogan, 38 F.3d 1148, 1149-50 (10th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). {27} The State also relies on a number of Options: A. holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene B. holding that the officers were justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest on outstanding warrants because the officers had information that the defendant was suspected of running a methamphetamine operation on the premises other people were living there and assisting the defendant and at the time the sweep began the defendant had not yet been located C. holding that protective sweep was justified incident to arrest outside residence where officers had reasonable suspicion that dangerous individuals were in apartment D. recognizing that the justification for a protective sweep of even a few minutes would be questionable in light of the officers concession that after arresting the defendant in front of his house the officer could have just put the defendant in the car and driven away E. holding that officers were not justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest despite the defendants alleged involvement with narcotics and possession of weapons because the defendant did not resist and there was no noise or other evidence suggesting anyone else was present in the house

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene
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: obligee parent or guardian or designee of the parent or guardian." 17 . Dowling v. Dowling, 679 P.2d 480, 483 (Alaska 1984). 18 . Scully v. Scully, 987 P.2d 743, 744 (Alaska 1999). 19 . Id. at 744-45 (quoting Memorandum from Representative Fran Ulmer to Co-Chairs of House Health, Education and Social Services Committee (Feb. 3, 1992)). 20 . Id. at 745 (quoting AS 25.24.170(a)). 21 . Nat'l Bank of Alaska v. Ketzler, 71 P.3d 333, 334-35 (Alaska 2003). 22 . 987 P.2d 743 (Alaska 1999). 23 . 2002 WL 1998451 (Alaska Aug. 28, 2002). We note that Benneft is a non-precedential memorandum opinion and thus offers only non-binding guidance in this case. 24 . Id. at "1-2. 25 . 3 P.3d 930 (Alaska 2000). 26 . Id. at 931 (emphasis added). 27 . See also Benson v. Benson, 977 P.2d 88, 92 (Alaska 1999) (<HOLDING>). 28 . Id.; see also Vachon v. Pugliese, 931 Options: A. holding that the retroactive application of the child support formula in civil rule 903 to a period of years in which there was no existing child support order did not violate rule 903h2s prohibition on retroactive modification of arrears B. holding no retroactive application C. holding that an outofwedlock childs pending claim for retroactive child support was nondischargeable in bankruptcy because a debt for child support arises upon the birth of the child and that the fact that no court had yet ordered the debtor to support the child does not take the debt outside the scope of 11 usc 523a5 D. holding that child support should have been made retroactive E. holding retroactive application

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the retroactive application of the child support formula in civil rule 903 to a period of years in which there was no existing child support order did not violate rule 903h2s prohibition on retroactive modification of arrears
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 Committee may amend, modify, suspend or terminate the Plan, in whole or in part, at any time, including the adoption of amendments deemed necessary or desirable to correct any defect or to supply omitted data or to reconcile any inconsistency in the Plan or in any Award granted hereunder; provided, however, that no amendment, alteration, suspension or discontinuation shall be made which would (a) impair any payments to Participants made prior to such amendment, modification, suspension or termination, unless the Committee has made a determination that such amendment or modification is in the best interests of all persons to whom Awards have theretofore been granted; provided further, however, that in no event may such an amendment or modification result in an increase in the amount of compensation payable pursuant to such Award or (b) cause compensation that is, or may become, payable hereunder to fail to qualify as Performance-Based Compensation. To the extent necessary or advisable under applicable law, including Section 162(m), Plan amendments shall be subject to shareholder approval. At no time before the actual distribution of funds to Participants under the Plan shall any Participant accrue any vested interest or right whatsoever under the Plan except as otherwise stated in this Plan.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Security Agreement shall continue in effect (notwithstanding the fact that from time to time there may be no Secured Obligations outstanding) until all of the Secured Obligations have been indefeasibly paid and performed in full and no commitments of any Secured Party which would give rise to any Secured Obligations are outstanding under the Credit Agreement or the other Loan Documents; provided that the termination of this Security Agreement under this Section 6.1 is subject to Section 6.5 .

assistant: Terminations
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: stated: “I think — I know I will.” T.140. The comments that followed this exchange do not negate the fact that Juror No. 9’s assurance, taken in context and as a whole, was unequivocal. As to Juror No. 13, the trial court secured a definite statement that she would keep an open mind until the end of the trial. See T.141-42. After reviewing the voir dire of these jurors, the Court cannot say that the state trial court’s conclusion regarding their ability to be impartial is without “fair support” in the record. See Patton, 467 U.S. at Ground III: Harsh and excessive sentence A petitioner’s assertion that a sentencing judge abused his discretion in sentencing is generally not a federal claim subject to review by a habeas court. See Fielding v. LeFevre, 548 F.2d 1102, 1109 (2d Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>) (citing Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, Options: A. holding claim is cognizable B. holding that petitioner raised no cognizable federal claim by seeking to prove that state judge abused his sentencing discretion by disregarding psychiatric reports C. holding claim is not cognizable D. recognizing that sentencing judges have the discretion to reject any sentencing guideline but no judge is required to do so E. holding that a claim seeking dna testing is cognizable under section 1983

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that petitioner raised no cognizable federal claim by seeking to prove that state judge abused his sentencing discretion by disregarding psychiatric reports
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 terminated by any Purchaser, as to such Purchaser’s obligations hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and the other Purchasers, by written notice to the other parties, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before April __, 2016; provided , however , that such termination will not affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except with respect to any Claims under any Environmental Laws which are addressed exclusively in Section 4 11 , there is no Claim pending or, to the knowledge of VTDC, threatened against VTDC, Valero Port Arthur or any of their Affiliates or relating to any of their respective assets which, if adversely determined, would, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect with respect to the Business or Valero Port Arthur, taken as a whole. To the knowledge of VTDC, the operations and business of Valero Port Arthur have been conducted by Valero Port Arthur in substantial compliance with all Applicable Laws except (a) as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect with respect to the Business or Valero Port Arthur, taken as a whole, and (b) with respect to Environmental Laws, which are addressed exclusively in Section 4.11 .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Id. at 507, 79 S.Ct. 1400. Closer to the case at hand is United States v. Hayman, discussed at page 82 above, where a district court faced with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a habeas corpus case held a hearing without having the petitioner present, and then found that counsel had engaged in the conflicted representation with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. The Supreme Court disapproved and reversed, holding that the district court “did not proceed in conformity with Section 2255 when it made findings on controverted issues of fact relating to respondent’s own knowledge without notice to respondent and without his being present.” Hayman, 342 U.S. at 220, 72 S.Ct. 263; see also, Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 285, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830 (1941) (<HOLDING>). Although, as the government argues, in Options: A. holding that contested factual issues in 2255 cases must be decided on the basis of an evidentiary hearing not affidavits B. holding that issues raised and dealt with in posttrial evidentiary hearings may be preserved for appeal C. holding that disputed issues of fact cannot be resolved based on affidavits and must be decided based on evidentiary hearings the only admissible procedure for resolving such issues D. holding plenary hearings are required when there are contested issues of material fact on the basis of conflicting affidavits E. holding that on a motion for summary judgment the court cannot try issues of fact it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that disputed issues of fact cannot be resolved based on affidavits and must be decided based on evidentiary hearings the only admissible procedure for resolving such issues
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 Philippines, 667 F.2d 324 (2d Cir.1981), as authority to the contrary. In that case, the Second Circuit stated that it had "formulated a more general principle, applicable not only to the ship’s gear but also to transitory conditions on the ship____” Id. at 328 (citation omitted). In Lieggi the plaintiff tripped on greased wire that was a part of the ship’s gear, although not defective in the sense of the malfunctioning winch in Scindia. Moreover, in Lieggi, the ship’s crew affirmatively undertook to correct the problem but failed to do so. 15 . We further note that this case is not one involving a basic appurtenance of the ship, such as the gangway in Sarauw v. Oceanic Navigation Corp., 655 F.2d 526 (3rd Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 914, 102 S.Ct. 1767, 72 L.Ed.2d 173 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Nor is this a case where the shipowner has Options: A. holding that where by virtue of state action access is limited but remains reasonable there is no such denial of access as entitles the landowner to compensation B. holding shipowner responsible to maintain safety of gangway supplied by stevedore where gangway was only means of access from ship C. holding that right of access to courts not infringed where prisoners supplied with an inadequate prison library so long as they were provided with appointed counsel D. holding that denial of access to carbon paper and reproduction equipment and denial of facetoface access to other inmates did not deprive an inmate of his right of access to the courts E. holding that the need to maintain the secrecy of the governments investigation outweighed the publics right of access to sentencing documents

assistant: The best answer is B. holding shipowner responsible to maintain safety of gangway supplied by stevedore where gangway was only means of access from ship
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: third elements of the prima facie case. Thus, we consider only the first element of Thomas’ prima facie case—the public concern test. In determining whether Thomas’ speech in support of Perry’s promotion meets this threshold, we consider the “content, form, and context” of her speech. Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684; see Ulrich, 308 F.3d at 978. A. Content The district court concluded that Thomas’ support of Perry for the promotion was not a matter of public concern because her speech was about a personnel matter. However, the type of personnel matters that we have deemed unprotected under the public concern test are employment grievances in which the employee is complaining about her own job treatment, not personnel matters pertaining to others. See Ulrich, 308 F.3d at 978 (<HOLDING>); Hyland v. Wonder, 972 F.2d 1129, 1138 (9th Options: A. recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern B. holding that falsification of information in a search warrant affidavit was a matter of public concern C. holding that a doctors protest against the laying off of other physicians was of public concern D. holding that issues of prison security public safety and official corruption are matters of public concern E. holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a doctors protest against the laying off of other physicians was of public concern
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 representations and warranties set forth in this Article V and all representations and warranties contained in any certificate delivered pursuant to this Agreement, or in any of the Loan Documents (including any such representation or warranty made in , or in connection with , any amendment thereto) shall constitute representations and warranties made under this Agreement. All representations and warranties made under this Agreement: (i) shall be made or deemed to be made at and as of the date hereof, and (ii) survive the closing of the Loan and shall not be waived by the execution and delivery of this Agreement, any investigation made by or on behalf of the Lender or the making of the Loan hereunder.

assistant: Warranties