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: has merit. First, the Hopkins Appraisal is not hearsay, because it is not being offered for the truth of the matters stated (e.g., that the actual value of Anand's station at the time of the appraisal was $1,560,000), but merely to prove that the appraisal was conducted. Second, the Hopkins Appraisal is properly authenticated, as Anand produced it to defendant during discovery. (See Osenbaugh Deck, ¶ 3.) Documents produced in response to discovery requests are admissible on a motion for summary judgment since they are self-authenticating and constitute the admissions of a party opponent. See Architectural Iron Worlcers Local No. 63 Welfare Fund v. United Contractors, Inc., 46 F.Supp.2d 769, 771-72 (N.D.Ill.1999); Federal Trade Commission v. Hughes, 710 F.Supp. 1520, 1523 (N.D.Tex.1989) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Anand’s husband subsequently Options: A. holding that any general deadline for completion of discovery facially applies to requests for admissions B. holding that rule 36 requests for admissions are not included within the parameters of a general cutoff for discovery in a scheduling order C. holding that documents produced in response to discovery requests were authenticated under rule 901b4 of the federal rules of evidence and constituted party admissions under rule 801d2a D. holding that requests for admissions are subject to discovery cutoff dates E. holding that plaintiff need not have submitted requests for admissions by the august 15 discovery motion cutoff date or by the discovery cutoff date of september 15 because requests for admissions are distinct from other general discovery devices and are not subject to discovery cutoff dates

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that documents produced in response to discovery requests were authenticated under rule 901b4 of the federal rules of evidence and constituted party admissions under rule 801d2a
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: Seller agrees to sell to Purchaser, and Purchaser agrees to purchase from Seller, two hundred ninety nine (299) shares (“ Purchased Shares ”) of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.001 par value, of the Company (“ Series A Preferred ”), pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Such Series A Preferred shall have the rights, restrictions, privileges and preferences set forth in the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “ Amended and Restated Articles ”).

assistant: Sales
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 315-16. The question, then, is whether the remedy of reversal, employed in Akins and Bentley, is still viable in the face of the scope of review set forth in Russell and its progeny that we review only BVA decisions and do not perform a full review of the underlying decision(s). We hold that the remedy of reversal is, in fact, still viable today. Since Russell, the Court at least twice has reversed a BVA decision denying a CUE claim when there was no basis whatsoever in the record for a contrary result. Ternus v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 370, 377 (1994) (reversing BVA decision and holding that CUE existed in RO decision that had reduced veteran’s benefits where Court found that “[i]t is clear” that CUE existed therein (citing Olson, infra)); Olson v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 430 (1993) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, in other cases, where the effect Options: A. holding vcaa inapplicable to claim that ro decision contained cue B. holding that prior ro decision that had not become final was not subject to cue collateral attack C. holding that cue existed in ro decision that had reduced veterans benefits where court found that it is evident that cue existed therein D. holding that each allegation of cue is separate and must be specifically considered by the board before the veterans court has jurisdiction E. holding that cue motion is not claim for benefits and that vcaa definition of claimant cannot encompass person seeking revision of final decision based on cue

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that cue existed in ro decision that had reduced veterans benefits where court found that it is evident that cue existed therein
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: weapons. Rather, the critical factors are that Miller gave varying accounts as to how he lost his weapon and failed to report the loss in a timely manner. As opposed to Miller, the two white officers did not give conflicting versions about the loss of their weapons. Because Miller cannot demonstrate that nonmembers of the protected class who were similarly situated to him were treated more favorably, he cannot establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. See Blanding v. Pennsylvania State Police, 12 F.3d 1303, 1309 (3d Cir.1993) (affirming district court’s finding that white officers who were not probationary employees were not similarly situated to black probationary employee even though all had been involved in incidents of domestic violence); Allen, 128 F.Supp.2d, at 494 (<HOLDING>). b. Retaliation Claim After Miller’s Options: A. holding that a white office was not similarly situated to a black officer who was charged with more offenses than the white officer B. holding that a white male is not in a protected class for purposes of his discrimination claim because a white male is not a member of an historically favored group C. holding that black residents failed to state an equal protection claim where they did not allege the existence of a similarly situated group of white residents who were treated differently D. holding that the white defendants association with a black defendant was not sufficient to give them standing to join in the black defendants batson challenge E. holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a white office was not similarly situated to a black officer who was charged with more offenses than the white officer
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: `` zynga corporate family '' refers to zynga 's subsidiaries , parent companies , joint ventures and other corporate entities under common ownership and/or any of their agents , consultants , employees , officers and directors .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that Pacheco signed a consent form before the officers searched his home. (Id. at 405-06). But later, he clarified that he only saw Pacheco sign the consent form(s) after the search was complete. (Id. at 408, 433-34, 436-37). 9 . Deputy Stickel put it best; “This was not an average traffic stop.” (Doc. 40, PageID 281). 10 . Pacheco does not argue that his fingerprints must be suppressed due- to the officers’ failure to provide Miranda warnings. Nor could he. As several courts have concluded, "the Miranda rule protects against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which, in turn, is not implicated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements.” United States v. Lara-Garcia, 478 F.3d 1231, 1235-36 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Flores-Sandoval, 474 F.3d Options: A. 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 B. holding that because code 19260 a procedural statute did not expressly provide a right of suppression of evidence a violation of that provision did not require application of the exclusionary rule in the absence of a constitutional violation C. holding that suppression of derivative evidence from a miranda violation cannot be justified under the supreme courts closefit requirement 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 D. holding that miranda violation did not require suppression of immigrants fingerprints
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: CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the court will grant summary judgment to Amtrak on all claims. 1 . That court was abolished in 1997, and its jurisdiction transferred to this court. See 45 U.S.C. § 719(b)(2). 2 . Amtrak also notes that affirmative covenants are commonly considered to be encumbrances. See, e.g., Boyle v. Lake Forest Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 538 F.Supp. 765, 769 (S.D.Ala.1982) (stating that "an affirmative covenant running with the land” is an "encumbrance”); Magraw v. Dillow, 341 Md. 492, 671 A.2d 485, 490 (1996) ("The word [encumbrance] has no precise meaning but includes ... covenants running with the land at the time of conveyance ....”) (brackets in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); O’Neill v. Van Tassel, 137 N.Y. 297, 33 N.E. 314, 315 (1893) (<HOLDING>); Blain v. Taylor, 19 Abb.Pr. 228 Options: A. holding that covenant to maintain and repair fences runs with the land and is an encumbrance B. holding that pleadings cannot be regarded as summary judgment evidence C. holding that the plaintiff was entitled to conclude that the district court regarded the motion as timely this being the case unique circumstances exist requiring that her motion be regarded as effectively terminating the running of the time for appeal D. holding that a covenant running with the land which compels the owner to rebuild and repair a wall in the same manner as when originally constructed cannot be regarded in any other light than as a perpetual incumbrance E. holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a covenant running with the land which compels the owner to rebuild and repair a wall in the same manner as when originally constructed cannot be regarded in any other light than as a perpetual incumbrance
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 Original Credit Agreement is, effective as of the Restatement Effective Date (as defined below), hereby amended and restated in the form attached as Exhibit A hereto. Additionally, the Exhibits to the Original Credit Agreement are amended and restated in the form attached hereto.

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 Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, whether oral or written, by any officer, employee or representative of any party hereto in respect of the subject matter contained herein; and any prior agreement of the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter contained herein is hereby terminated and cancelled (other than the Non-disclosure and Assignment of Inventions Agreement dated April 23, 2015 by and between Employee and the Company).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: For purposes of this Section 9 , the term “Company” shall include the Company and each of their respective successors, assigns, subsidiaries or affiliates and the term “Rimlinger” shall include the Rimlinger and each of their respective heirs, successors, assigns, subsidiaries or affiliates (other than the Company Parties and any of their respective subsidiaries).

assistant: Definitions
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: we cannot conclude that the Bessemer Division erred in transferring the cause. See § 6-3-21.1, Ala.Code 1975 (statute allowing discretionary transfer of actions from one proper forum to another “in the interest of justice”). We now turn to the substantive issues raised by the parties. Kaufmann contends that the trial court should not have dismissed its spoliation-of-evidence claim against Blue Dot and Davis. However, Kaufmann asserted that issue during the earlier litigation involving the parties, and the jury in that case was given a spoliation instruction based upon Kaufmann’s claim that Davis had destroyed evidence. Such an instruction is a remedy available when a party to pending litigation is alleged to have spoliated evidence. See Smith v. Atkinson, 771 So.2d 429, 438 (Ala.2000) (<HOLDING>). Principally because such a remedy exists, the Options: A. holding that an adverseinference jury instruction was an appropriate sanction for spoliation of evidence B. holding that spoliation may be a basis for a cause of action where a third party has negligently destroyed material evidence but stating that jury charges that presume missing evidence weighs against the spoliator and discovery sanctions are available when spoliation is charged against an opposing party C. holding that an adverse inference for spoliation of evidence requires proof that evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind and that it was relevant to the partys claim or defense D. recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence E. holding that to consider whether to apply a spoliation sanction the evidence must be relevant to an issue in the case and the party who destroyed the evidence must be under a duty to preserve the evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that spoliation may be a basis for a cause of action where a third party has negligently destroyed material evidence but stating that jury charges that presume missing evidence weighs against the spoliator and discovery sanctions are available when spoliation is charged against an opposing party
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 Motion In Limine. 4 . Defendant Borgesi also “intends to ask this Court to reconsider its prior ruling denying his request for a bill of particulars in the event that his motion is denied and he must proceed to trial.” Def. Borgesi’s Mot. to Preclude Trial 7 n. 1, ECF No. 1363. Because he does not formally move for a bill of particu lars at this time, the Court will not address the issue. 5 . Again, the Court has no reason to decide whether the issue was necessarily decided by the jury at the first trial. 6 . Furthermore, Defendant Borgesi may have waived his Double Jeopardy defense based on the prior RICO-conspiracy conviction by not raising a timely objection prior to the original trial, which triggered the same issues here. See United States v. Blyden, 930 F.2d 323 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) 7 . The earlier indictment named Joseph Options: A. holding that a sua sponte dismissal of the charges during trial was not an acquittal that barred retrial based on double jeopardy B. holding that the trial courts dismissal of the charges after jeopardy had attached based on the prosecution witnesses failure to appear was not an acquittal and therefore double jeopardy did not prevent the court from reconsidering its decision and reinstating the charges C. holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial when defendant was not consulted or present D. holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial after defendant was found incompetent to stand trial in the midst of trial E. holding that defendant waived double jeopardy claim by obtaining severance of charges at first trial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that defendant waived double jeopardy claim by obtaining severance of charges at first 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: discretion by failing to consider the criteria for parole set forth in the Parole Project Memorandum. Respondents maintain that the Parole Project Memorandum confers no substantive rights on detainees and does not have the force of law. It is well settled that an agency must follow its own internal procedures “[wjhere the rights of individuals are affected”, whether or not such procedures are formally promulgated and “even where the internal procedures are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required.” Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235, 94 S.Ct. 1055, 1074, 39 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974). The Second Circuit interprets Morton to require the INS to follow its own regulations when the “subject regulations were for the alien’s benefit.” Montilla v. INS, 926 F.2d 162, 169 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). It distinguishes cases where “the agency Options: A. holding that instruction that defendant must have knowingly transported illegal alien sufficiently informed jury that the transportation must also be willful B. holding that a defendants waiver of the right to testify must be knowing informed and intelligent C. holding that a collateral challenge to the use of a deportation proceeding as an element of a criminal offense must be permitted where the deportation proceeding effectively eliminates the right of the alien to obtain judicial review but declining to enumerate which procedural errors are so fundamental that they may functionally deprive the alien of judicial review D. holding that an alien must be released unless the government demonstrates at a bond hearing that the alien poses a risk of flight or a risk of danger to the community E. holding that the ins must adhere to the requirements of 8 cfr 24210 which governs the manner in which an alien must be informed of right to counsel at a deportation hearing

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the ins must adhere to the requirements of 8 cfr 24210 which governs the manner in which an alien must be informed of right to counsel at a deportation hearing
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: All nonconforming outdoor advertising signs shall be discontinued or made conforming (amortized) within five and one-half (5lA) years from the effective date of this ordinance ([October 23, 1983]), unless explicitly prohibited by State Statute. (Emphasis added). 8 . The sixteen signs located along federal highway systems, while exempt from the removal requirement, still remained “nonconforming uses” subject to the ordinance’s other restrictions, such as the prohibitions on reconstructing damaged nonconforming signs, moving existing nonconforming signs to new locations on their lots, or building more such signs along the federal highway systems. Compare National Advertising Co. v. Bradshaw, 48 N.C.App. 10, 268 S.E.2d 816, appeal dismissed, 301 N.C. 400, 273 S.E.2d 446 (1980) (<HOLDING>). 9 . A facial takings attack is a claim that Options: A. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required B. holding that state court could regulate the practice of law in federal courts located in the state C. holding illegal nationals reconstruction of sign deemed nonconforming under state statute and located along federal highway system where sign was more than 50 percent destroyed by wind D. holding plaintiff entitled to replace ment value of gold leaf professional sign located in the window of his leased law office when defendants intentionally destroyed it E. holding that the validity of releases under the federal employers liability act was a question to be determined by federal rather than state law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding illegal nationals reconstruction of sign deemed nonconforming under state statute and located along federal highway system where sign was more than 50 percent destroyed by wind
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ANY CONFLICT OF LAW PRINCIPLES (BUT GIVING EFFECT TO SECTION 5-1401 OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL OBLIGATION LAW AND FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO NATIONAL BANKS).

assistant: Applicable 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: lease from McKinney form the basis of the complaint. Melody Home, 741 S.W.2d at 352. Johnston has established consumer status, the first element in a DTPA breach of warranty claim. Leonard & Harral Packing Co., 883 S.W.2d 337, 342. Few Texas cases have addressed the application of the common law breach of warranty of merchantability to a lease of goods. However, those addressing it have found that the implied warranty of merchantability applies to lease transactions. See LaBella, 942 S.W.2d at 131 (applying an implied warranty to a lease on a vehicle and stating that the warranty is a representation or promise by a lessor as to the quality or suitability of the consideration leased); W.R. Weaver Co. v. Burroughs Corp., 580 S.W.2d 76, 81 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso, 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>); American Lease Plan v. Ben-Kro Corp., 508 Options: A. holding that a standard form disclaimer for negligence of thirdparty tour operators which appeared on plaintiffs cruise ticket was valid as a disclaimer B. holding that representations in a product bulletin created an express warranty inconsistent with disclaimer contained therein which was thereby inoperable C. holding similar language to be a valid disclaimer D. holding inconspicuous written disclaimer to be unenforceable absent actual knowledge of the disclaimer E. holding that the language in the lease agreement for computer accounting programs was an effective disclaimer of an implied warranty but for language in a statement of installation conditions which document created a genuine issue of material fact as to disclaimer

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the language in the lease agreement for computer accounting programs was an effective disclaimer of an implied warranty but for language in a statement of installation conditions which document created a genuine issue of material fact as to disclaimer
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: all discounts , gift and coupon codes can only be applied when subscribing to premium services , and they can only be applied to accounts that are not already subscribing to premium services .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors, assigns, including any direct or indirect successor by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise to all or substantially all of the business and/or assets of the Corporation, spouses, heirs, and personal and legal representatives. The Corporation shall require and cause any successor (whether direct or indirect by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise) to all, substantially all, or a substantial part, of the business and/or assets of the Corporation, by written agreement in form and substance satisfactory to Indemnitee, expressly to assume and agree to perform this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that the Corporation would be required to perform if no such succession had taken place. This Agreement shall continue in effect regardless of whether Indemnitee continues to serve as a director, trustee, partner, officer, managing member, employee, agent or fiduciary or fiduciary (as applicable) of the Corporation or of any other enterprise at the Corporation’s request.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the jury. In impairing plaintiffs’ ability to respond, therefore, Ford’s late production prejudiced plaintiffs’ rights both to timely discovery and to a fair trial. Ford asserts that, by the time of his September 27 deposition, Cantor had analyzed, charted, and formed opinions on the September 12 material. Ford fails to mention, however, that the motions court’s sanction order limited Cantor’s testimony to opinions rendered before September 7, 1996. Th 9 F.Supp. 595, 599-600 (D.R.I.1996) (ordering a new trial because of inconsistent rulings under the discovery rules). In certain situations, a new trial may obviate the harm caused by a late production by allowing more time for preparation. See, e.g., Freeman v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 675 F.Supp. 877, 889 n. 5 (D.Del.1987) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, in imposing a sanction for failure to Options: A. holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness B. holding that because the supplementation issue arose in a summary judgment motion and the time before trial would allow the opposition to respond the equities would point to the reopening of discovery as the appropriate sanction C. holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived D. holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court E. holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that because the supplementation issue arose in a summary judgment motion and the time before trial would allow the opposition to respond the equities would point to the reopening of discovery as the appropriate sanction
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 Borrower agrees to indemnify each Lender for, and to hold each Lender harmless from, any loss (other than the loss of Applicable Margin) or expense that such Lender may sustain or incur as a consequence of (a) default by the Borrower in making a conversion into or continuation of Eurodollar Loans after the Borrower has given a notice requesting the same in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, (b) default by the Borrower in making any prepayment of or conversion from Eurodollar Loans after the Borrower has given a notice thereof in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement or (c) the making of a prepayment of Eurodollar Loans on a day that is not the last day of an Interest Period with respect thereto. A certificate as to any amounts payable pursuant to this Section submitted to the Borrower by any Lender shall be conclusive in the absence of manifest error. This covenant shall survive for 90 days after the termination of this Agreement and the payment of the Loans and all other amounts payable hereunder.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: persons under the age of 13 , or the equivalent minimum age in the relevant jurisdiction , are not permitted to access or use the fitbit service unless their parent has consented in accordance with applicable law .

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: None of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Borrower for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, or the reports, financial statements, certificates or other written information referred to in Section 3.04 or delivered after the date hereof by or on behalf of any Credit Party to the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent or any Lender pursuant to Section 5.01 (taken together with all other information so furnished and as modified or supplemented by other information so furnished) contained, in each case as of the date thereof, any material misstatement of fact or omitted to state, in each case as of the date thereof, any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; provided that, with respect to projected financial information or other forward looking information, the Borrower represents only that such information was prepared in good faith based upon assumptions believed to be reasonable at the time.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Your current titles are Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer, and you will continue to report to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. This is a full-time position. While you render services to the Company, you will not engage in any other employment, consulting or other business activity (whether full‑time or part-time) that would create a conflict of interest with the Company. By signing this Agreement, you confirm to the Company that you have no contractual commitments or other legal obligations that would prohibit you from performing your duties for the Company.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you also acknowledge that the services may be made available under such brands or request options by or in connection with : ( i ) certain of uber 's subsidiaries and affiliates ; or ( ii ) independent third party providers , including transportation network company drivers , transportation charter permit holders or holders of similar transportation permits , authorizations or licenses .

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: If arbitration occurs as provided for herein, the Corporation shall reimburse the Executive for his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements incurred in such arbitration and hereby agrees to pay interest on any money award obtained by the Executive from the date payment should have been made until the date payment is made, calculated at the prime interest rate of Bank of America, N.A., in effect from time to time, plus 2%, from the date that payment(s) to him should have been made under this Agreement. If the Executive enforces the arbitration award in court, the Corporation shall reimburse the Executive for his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements incurred in such enforcement.

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: The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement and in the event of any ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation, no presumption or burden of proof shall arise favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement.

assistant: Construction
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: at 105. According to Rodriguez, the purpose was to substitute these persons and initiate a recruitment process. Id. at 103. Ceinos testified that the recruitment plan was based upon the fact that there were a substantial amount of employees in key positions near the retirement age, which could lead to numerous simultaneous vacancies for an extended period of time. See Docket # 89, p. 469. Ceinos believed this could negatively impact Ex-Lax’s operations. Id. On this point, the First Circuit has held that “company officials are permitted to gather information relevant to personnel planning without raising the specter of age discrimination.” Wallace v. O.C. Tanner Recognition Co., 299 F.3d 96, 101 (1st Cir.2002) (citing Cox v. Dubuque Bank & Trust Co., 163 F.3d 492, 497 (8th Cir.1998)) (<HOLDING>); Colosi v. Electri-Flex Co., 965 F.2d 500, 502 Options: A. holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language B. holding that many courts have recognized that an employer may make reasonable inquiries into the retirement plans of its employees C. holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed D. holding that serial offer of retirement plans did not implicate erisa E. holding that the fact that employees mention or ask about retirement is not evidence of age discrimination and therefore not finding sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of a supervisor who frequently asked plaintiff about his retirement plans

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that many courts have recognized that an employer may make reasonable inquiries into the retirement plans of its employees
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination. The Declaratory Judgment Statute is applicable only where there is a present actual controversy, and all interested persons are made parties, and only where justiciable issues are presented. It does not undertake to decide the legal effect of laws upon a state of facts which is future, contingent or uncertain. A declaratory judgment will not be granted unless the danger or dilemma of the plaintiff is present, not contingent on the happening of hypothetical future events; the prejudice to his position must be actual and genuine and not merely possible, speculative, contingent, or remote. Id. (quoting Anderson on Declaratory Judgments (2d. ed. 1951)); see also Cummings v. City of Fayetteville, 294 Ark. 151, 741 S.W.2d 638 (1987) (<HOLDING>). In the case brought to us for decision, I Options: A. holding that under 28 usc 1292b the appellate courts may review only matters in the order not all issues in the case B. holding that although a state may be free to develop its own laws of search and seizure to meet law enforcement needs such laws may not authorize police conduct which trenches upon fourth amendment rights regardless of the labels which it attaches to such conduct C. recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice D. holding that there was no justiciable controversy and that while many laws may be easily subject to challenge we may only review such matters in a proper law suit E. holding that the summoned party may in an enforcement proceeding challenge the 7609f2 determination that there is a reasonable basis for believing there may be a violation of a revenue law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there was no justiciable controversy and that while many laws may be easily subject to challenge we may only review such matters in a proper law suit
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: cannot be considered harmless error. And this is so whether the proper standard for harmless error in this case is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 26, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), or fair assurance that the verdict was not affected, see Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). CONCLUSION The judgment of conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. 1 . See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501-02, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). 2 . The amendment to Rule 43 on December 1, 2002, following Media’s trial, effected only stylistic changes in the language of the rule. 3 . See United States v. Evans, 352 F.3d 65, 68-70 (2d Cir.2003) Options: A. holding that though judge did not question juror individually note from juror to judge requesting private meeting to ask legal question did not suggest juror would not base verdict on evidence B. holding a new trial required when juror is replaced by an alternate during jury deliberations C. holding that a communication between the judge and juror which is unrelated to the case being tried is not improper and prejudicial D. holding harmless under either standard ex parte communication consisting of telephone call by trial judge to individual juror at home to verify medical condition resulting in replacement by alternate juror without notice to counsel E. holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding harmless under either standard ex parte communication consisting of telephone call by trial judge to individual juror at home to verify medical condition resulting in replacement by alternate juror without notice to counsel
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract. Delivery of a signature page of any Loan Document by telecopy or electronic mail shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of such agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 2510, 2517, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). ****** For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby reversed. So Ordered. 1 . In any event, the statutoiy issue is intertwined with the First Amendment concerns. 2 . We note, however, that the Court did not explicitly address whether it ought to decide the constitutional question before addressing the merits of the underlying common law claims in these cases. 3 . We could hardly hold only the appointments of commissioners appointed by a President of the opposite party invalid. 4 . Perhaps the President could challenge the constitutionality of the law by alleging that the statute impinged on his appointment power with respect to a particular nomination. 5 . But see Pillsbury Co. v. F.T.C., 354 F.2d 952, 964-65 (5th Cir.1966) (<HOLDING>). 6 . The Commission actually raises the de Options: A. holding that senate subcommittee proceedings where commissioners were questioned about their conduct in a specific case deprived the defendant corporation of due process B. holding that although the parking citation that the plaintiff received did not indicate where and how to contest the allegation the plaintiff was not deprived of procedural due process because he received a summons to appear in court via first class mail before he was deprived of any liberty interest C. holding that a prisoner cannot be deprived of a protected liberty interest in goodtime credits without procedural due process D. holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause E. holding that privileges licenses certificates and franchises qualify as property interests for purposes of procedural due process but that due process only becomes relevant where such property is deprived

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that senate subcommittee proceedings where commissioners were questioned about their conduct in a specific case deprived the defendant corporation of due process
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: Notices to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given if delivered personally or sent by overnight delivery service or by facsimile transmission. Notice shall be deemed to have been received on the date of personal delivery or facsimile transmission, or if sent by overnight delivery service, shall be deemed to have been received on the next delivery day after deposit with the courier or messenger. The addresses of the Parties are set forth on the signature page of this Note and a Party shall give written notice of any change of address to the other Party.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (and those convictions have become final) on separate prior occasions ... of — (i) 2 or more serious violent felonies.” 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Depending on the statutory context, a conviction might be deemed final at various times, for example, on the date judgment was imposed or on the date an appellate mandate issued. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527, 123 S.Ct. 1072, 155 L.Ed.2d 88 (2003) (recognizing alternative views of “finality”). Whichever view of finality applies to § 3559(c)(1), there can be no doubt that Snype’s prior state convictions here at issue, see infra at 144, were each entered on separate occasions prior to Snype’s federal crime and fairly represent separate convictions. See United States v. Powell, 404 F.3d 678, 682 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Martino, 294 F.3d Options: A. holding that for purposes of imposing a mandatory life sentence under 21 usc 841b1a two prior drug convictions should be viewed as separate from one another unless the conduct underlying both convictions was part of a single criminal episode quoting united states v gray 152 f3d 816 821 8th cir1998 B. holding a sentence enhancement for two prior convictions must be based on separate criminal episodes C. holding separate convictions for drug transactions occurring four or five days apart were properly counted as separate convictions D. holding lopez was inapplicable to the language prior conviction for a felony drug offense in 21 usc 841b1a because felony drug offense was defined in 21 usc 80244 as an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the united states or of a state E. holding previous convictions can only be used for sentence enhancement purposes under 18 usc 924e1 if the restoration of civil rights regarding such convictions expressly prohibited the possession of firearms

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that for purposes of imposing a mandatory life sentence under 21 usc 841b1a two prior drug convictions should be viewed as separate from one another unless the conduct underlying both convictions was part of a single criminal episode quoting united states v gray 152 f3d 816 821 8th cir1998