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: as a third-party launderer under subsection (a)(2). These offenders generally are not involved in the underlying offense and their sentencing base level is set by the “value of the laundered funds.” Id. § 2S1.1(a)(2). Blackmon argues that he should have been considered a third-party money launderer under § 2Sl.l(a)(2). He contends that there was no underlying offense because the $15,000 he received representing drug proceeds was supplied by the Government as part of a sting transaction and not by Williams. Put another way, he argues that the first condition required to be treated as a direct launderer, subpart (A), was not met. This argument is untenable. The laundering offense is not “fictional,” as Blackmon states. See United States v. Perez, 992 F.2d 295, 298 (11th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Contreras, 950 F.2d 232, 237 Options: A. holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate B. holding that the defendant was entitled to a new trial where the only witnesses to a drug transaction other than the defendant were an fbi agent and a cl C. holding that a money laundering enhancement was applicable because defendant knew the funds were represented to be proceeds of a drug transaction D. holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident E. holding that to establish a money laundering offense the laundering of funds cannot occur in the same transaction through which those funds first become tainted by crime

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a money laundering enhancement was applicable because defendant knew the funds were represented to be proceeds of a drug transaction
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: As of April 15, 2015, the authorized capital stock of the Company consists of (a) 300,000,000 shares of Common Stock, of which (i) 150,935,137 shares are issued and outstanding, and (b) 71,564,863 shares are reserved for issuance upon the exercise or conversion, as the case may be, of outstanding options, warrants or other convertible securities; and (c) 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock, none of which, are outstanding or reserved for issuance upon the exercise or conversion, as the case may be, of outstanding options, warrants or other convertible securities. Except as disclosed in the Company SEC Documents and set forth in the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, as amended and contemplated in the Transaction Documents, there are no anti-dilution or price adjustment provisions, co-sale rights, registration rights, rights of first refusal or other similar rights contained in the terms governing any outstanding security of the Company that will be triggered by the issuance of the Shares.

assistant: Capitalization
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: (a) Keep all material Property and systems useful and necessary in its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear and casualties excepted, (b) maintain with financially sound and reputable insurance companies insurance on all its material Property in at least such amounts and against at least such risks as are usually insured against in the same general area by companies engaged in the same or a similar business, and (c) except pursuant to Dispositions not prohibited hereby, maintain ownership, directly (and not through any Subsidiary), of all or substantially all of the businesses and assets of the Utility Business.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the other Loan Documents shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York without regard to conflict of laws principles thereof that would result in the application of any law other than the law of the State of New York.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: abuse implicates substantial risk of physical force, even when unaccompanied by rape, bodily injury, or extreme forms of coercion. To do otherwise would be to perpetrate, deliberately and in contravention of established precedent, the very judicial indifference to gender-based violence that Congress has endeavored to obviate. IV We recognize that there has been' considerable litigation over whether the civil remedy provision of the VAWA is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under either the Commerce Clause of Article I or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Compare, e.g., Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 169 F.3d 820, 889 (4th Cir.1999) (en banc), petitions for cert. filed, (U.S. June 25, 1999) (No. 99-5), (U.S. June 30, 1999) (No. 99-29) (<HOLDING>) with Ericson v. Syracuse University, 45 Options: A. holding that congress had exceeded its authority by using its section five power under the fourteenth amendment to enact the statute B. holding that enactment of the civil remedy provision of the violence against women act of 1994 42 usc 13981 exceeded congresss power under the commerce clause noting that 13981 contained no jurisdictional element C. holding that 42 usc 13981 exceeds congresss authority under the commerce clause D. holding that enactment of 13981 exceeded congressional authority under either the commerce clause or section 5 of the fourteenth amendment E. holding 13981 constitutional under the commerce clause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that enactment of 13981 exceeded congressional authority under either the commerce clause or section 5 of the fourteenth amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Alvarez-Bernabe, 626 F.3d 1161, 1165-66 (10th Cir.2010); see also United States v. Torres-Duenas, 461 F.3d 1178, 1180-83 (10th Cir.2006) (upholding a 41-month sentence for illegal reentry based in part on a 16-level enhancement for a prior conviction). Based on this precedent, the district court could reasonably rely on the 16-level enhancement to arrive at an appropriate sentence. Mr. Soto-Robledo relies not only on the alleged unfairness of the 16-level enhancement, but also on the alleged failure to adequately consider mitigating factors. According to Mr. Soto-Robledo, these factors deserved greater weight. But the district court has the discretion to balance mitigating factors, such as cultural assimilation. See United States v. Galarza-Payan, 441 F.3d 885, 889-90 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Alvarez-Bernabe, 626 F.3d at 1167 Options: A. holding that a court of appeals may afford a presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence B. holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range C. holding that sentence within guidelines range enjoys a presumption of reasonableness D. holding that a 57month sentence for illegal reentry was substantively reasonable rejecting the defendants effort to rebut the presumption of reasonableness based on evidence of cultural assimilation E. recognizing a presumption of reasonableness

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a 57month sentence for illegal reentry was substantively reasonable rejecting the defendants effort to rebut the presumption of reasonableness based on evidence of cultural assimilation
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 within the period ending one year after a Change in Control, (i) the Bank terminates Executive’s employment without Cause, or (ii) Executive voluntarily terminates her employment With Good Reason, the Bank will, within ten calendar days of the termination of Executive’s employment, make a lump-sum cash payment to her equal to one times Executive’s current annual base salary. The cash payment made under this Section 11(b) shall be made in lieu of any payment also required under Section 10(f) of this Agreement because of Executive’s termination of employment; however, Executive’s rights under Section 10(f) are not otherwise affected by this Section 11. Following termination of employment, executive will also continue to participate in any benefit plans of the Bank that provide medical, dental and life insurance coverage upon terms no less favorable than the most favorable terms provided to senior executives. If the Bank cannot provide such coverage because Executive is no longer an employee, the Bank will provide Executive with comparable coverage on an individual basis or the cash equivalent. The medical, dental and life insurance coverage provided under this Section 11(b) shall cease upon the earlier of: (i) Executive’s death; (ii) Executive’s employment by another employer other than one of which he is the majority owner; or (iii) eighteen (18) months after his termination of employment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in accordance with 12 C.F.R. Part 359, in no event will the value of the cash severance benefits plus the continuation of insurance benefits provided to the Executive under this paragraph (b) exceed twelve months of the Executive’s base salary at the time of her termination of employment.

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: alleged cheating on his expense account regarding a $15.00 lunch; (2) DeBord’s approval of a $4,000 lease of computer equipment from a firm in which he or his son allegedly had an interest; and (3) the alleged interest of Vrungos and DeBord in TRW’s acquisition of Nations, an acquisition which never occurred. None of these activities attributed to DeBord or Vrungos constitutes an activity of TRW. These activities were not remotely on TRW’s behalf and did not advance TRW’s interests. To the contrary, if Roach’s allegations were true, TRW was the victim. We are persuaded that the Legislature in enacting CEPA did not intend that the disclosure of employee activities victimizing the employer would fall within CEPA. See Littman v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 715 F.Supp. 90 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (<HOLDING>). CEPA’s definition of “employer” supports our Options: A. holding that the coemployee immunity provision in workers compensation law was constitutional B. holding the defendant does not possess statutory standing to attack the subpoena because he has not demonstrated that he was within the zone of interests intended to be protected by 876a C. holding that although the defendant in that case was convicted after the effective date of the new statute 1137118 he nevertheless was required to register as a sex offender because 113716 was in effect at the time he was charged D. holding that plaintiffs allegation that he was fired because he disclosed fraudulent activity by coemployee was not covered by new jerseys cepa because the employer was the sole victim of the alleged fraud indirect impact on shareholders does not bring case within cepa E. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that plaintiffs allegation that he was fired because he disclosed fraudulent activity by coemployee was not covered by new jerseys cepa because the employer was the sole victim of the alleged fraud indirect impact on shareholders does not bring case within cepa
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: Identification and Proof of Guilt, 16 J. Legal Stud. 395, 435 (1987), one commentator observed that [c]ourts have struggled with the question of whether to engage in exclusion when, by chance, an eyewitness encounters or sees the defendant. Professor Gross calls this a "spontaneous identification," and in his study he found "many reported misidentifica-tions originated in this manner," but he was chagrined that persons writing about identification procedures had failed to acknowledge these are prone to errors, and had instead credited their reliability. Margery Malkin Koosed, The Proposed Innocence Protection Act Won't — Unless It Also Curbs Mistaken Eyewitness Identifications, 63 Ohio St. L.J. 263, 300 (2002). 6 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Jones, 666 N.E.2d 994, 1000-01 (Mass. 1996) (<HOLDING>); People v. Walker, 411 N.Y.S.2d 156, 159 (N.Y. Options: A. holding no remand required where no fundamental rights are implicated B. holding no abuse of discretion to exclude expert eyewitness identification testimony where governments case relied on more than eyewitness identification C. holding that although no governmental action contributed to the eyewitness identification and no due process rights were implicated fairness required preclusion of the evidence D. holding the error harmless due to eyewitness corroboration of the victims testimony E. holding admissible expert testimony concerning factors that may impair eyewitness identification and rejecting that concerning a particular eyewitness credibility and the statistical probability of eyewitness misidentification

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that although no governmental action contributed to the eyewitness identification and no due process rights were implicated fairness required preclusion of the evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No ERISA Event has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur that, when taken together with all other such ERISA Events for which liability is reasonably expected to occur, would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Erisa
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: 301 N.J.Super. 262, 275-76, 693 A.2d 1248 (App.Div.1997), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 402, 709 A2d 795 (1998) (noting that under post-1994 Act, plaintiffs sexual assault claim against police officer would be barred due to failure to file timely notice of claim); Pisano v. City of Union City, 198 N.J.Super. 588, 590, 487 A.2d 1296 (Law Div.1984) (determining that claims of false arrest and false imprisonment must be presented to public entities within ninety days after accrual and are barred by the Act after two years have lapsed); Garlanger v. Verbeke, 223 F.Supp.2d 596, 602 (D.N.J.2002) (noting Act’s notice requirement applicable to claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and false arrest); Rolax v. Whitman, 175 F.Supp.2d 720, 730 (D.N.J.2001) (<HOLDING>). We recognize that in limited circumstances, Options: A. recognizing the applicable commitment period requirement as temporal but only applicable to a debtor with projected disposable income B. holding rule applicable to witness C. holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice D. holding that the penalty is applicable E. holding acts notice requirement applicable to battery claim

assistant: The best answer is E. holding acts notice requirement applicable to battery claim
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 recognized in Wal-Mart Stores, the courts of appeals have generally limited the use of a spoliation instruction to two circumstances (generally referred to as the “two rules”): (1) a party’s deliberate destruction of relevant evidence, and (2) a party’s failure to produce relevant evidence or explain its nonproduction. 106 S.W.3d at 721. Under the first rule, a presumption arises that a party who deliberately destroys evidence does so because it is unfavorable to the party’s case. Id. Under the second, the same presumption arises because the party who controls the missing evidence is unable to explain its failure to produce the evidence. Id. at 722. Though we have never expressly adopted these two rules, both derive from our nineteenth-century precedent. See Cheatham, 8 Tex. at 167 (<HOLDING>); Underwood, 59 Tex. at 170 (observing that a Options: A. recognizing that all things are presumed against a wrongdoer B. recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions C. holding that a person is presumed to own all property that is titled in her name D. recognizing that an agencys decision to terminate an employee is presumed correct E. holding that absent evidence to the contrary court proceedings are presumed to be procedurally proper

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that all things are presumed against a wrongdoer
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article IV , the Purchaser covenants that the Securities may be disposed of only pursuant to an effective registration statement under, and in compliance with the requirements of, the Securities Act, or pursuant to an available exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration requirements of the Securities Act, and in compliance with any applicable state and federal securities laws. In connection with any transfer of the Securities other than: (i) pursuant to an effective registration statement; (ii) to the Company; (iii) pursuant to Rule 144 ( provided that the Purchaser provides the Company with reasonable assurances (in the form of seller and, if applicable, broker representation letters) that the securities may be sold pursuant to such rule); (iv) the Evercore Transfer or (v) in connection with a bona fide pledge as contemplated in Section 4.1(b) , the Company may require the transferor thereof to provide to the Company an opinion of counsel selected by the transferor and reasonably acceptable to the Company, the form and substance of which opinion shall be reasonably satisfactory to the Company, to the effect that such transfer does not require registration of such transferred Securities under the Securities Act. As a condition of such transfer, any such transferee shall agree in writing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement and shall have the rights of the Purchaser under this Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement with respect to such transferred Securities.

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: Campbell still would not be entitled to relief, because the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain the district court’s application of the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The district court adopted the factual findings of the Presentence Investigative Report (“PSR”), which found that Campbell employed Walters to travel from New York City to St. Lawrence County to distribute cocaine on multiple occasions, and that Walters admitted to investigators that Campbell actively sought her out to serve as a courier. Despite Campbell’s denial of these facts, the PSR was sufficient to permit the district court to find that Campbell recruited Walters and, ultimately, to apply the section 3B1.1(c) enhancement. See United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 223-24 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Campbell is mistaken in contending that the Options: A. holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case B. holding that because evidence was sufficient to support defendants 1962c convictions and jury could infer from evidence that defendants each manifested an agreement to participate in enterprises affairs evidence was sufficient to support defendants 1962d convictions for rico conspiracy C. holding that there was a sufficient basis for joinder of seven defendants in a single trial where all the defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy D. holding that evidence of defendants recruitment of single drug courier was sufficient to support section 3b11c enhancement E. holding that reasonable suspicion justified abdominal xray of suspected drug courier

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that evidence of defendants recruitment of single drug courier was sufficient to support section 3b11c enhancement
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: 4(a). See Fed.R.Bank.P. 8002 Advisory Committee Notes. Accordingly, we cannot construe Williams’s late notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time due to excusable neglect. See Deyhimy v. Rupp (In re Herwit), 970 F.2d 709, 710 (10th Cir.1992) (concluding that district court lacked jurisdiction to consider appeal from judgment of bankruptcy court where appellant filed notice of appeal eleven days after bankruptcy court entered judgment and did not file a motion for extension of time within the initial ten-day period or within the twenty days after the first ten-day period alleging that her failure to file a notice of appeal within the initial ten days was due to excusable neglect); see also Walker v. Bank of Cadiz (In re LBL Sports Ctr., Inc.), 684 F.2d 410, 412 (6th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). “The Supreme Court has emphasized that the Options: A. holding that district court erred in passing upon defendants claim of excusable neglect where defendant never requested an extension of time from the bankruptcy judge but only opposed plaintiffs motion to dismiss by alleging in oral argument before the district court facts which were claimed to establish excusable neglect B. holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss C. holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted D. holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendants motion to dismiss instead of in an amended complaint was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal E. holding that an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that district court erred in passing upon defendants claim of excusable neglect where defendant never requested an extension of time from the bankruptcy judge but only opposed plaintiffs motion to dismiss by alleging in oral argument before the district court facts which were claimed to establish excusable neglect
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 constitutional interpretation. Accordingly, the court will make no findings on this issue. Nevertheless, the court will assume the rules of statutory construction, and thus implied repeal, are applicable to the Constitution for the purposes of this order. The court notes that Article V of the Constitution provides an express method to amend the Constitution. Even assuming the rules of statutory construction are applicable, it could be argued that the Framers did not intend the Constitution to be modified through means other than amendment, such as implied repeal. However, as plaintiff points out, the Supreme Court has recognized implicit modifications to the Constitution absent express amendment. See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (<HOLDING>). It is “a cardinal principle of statutory Options: A. holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment B. holding that in enacting title vii congress abrogated eleventh amendment immunity C. holding that title ix was enacted pursuant to 5 of the fourteenth amendment consequently under seminole tribe title ix 42 usc 2000d7 abrogated states eleventh amendment immunity D. holding that congress exceeded its authority under 5 of the fourteenth amendment in attempting to abrogate the states eleventh amendment immunity in adea suits E. holding the fourteenth amendment partially abrogated eleventh amendment sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding the fourteenth amendment partially abrogated eleventh amendment sovereign immunity
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 Extension may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. Any facsimile or other electronic signature of this Extension will be deemed an original for all purposes.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: our services and materials incorporated by viber on our services ( `` material '' ) are protected by copyrights , patents , trade secrets or other proprietary rights ( `` copyrights '' ) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither the execution, delivery and performance of the Transaction Documents by the Lender, the consummation by the Lender of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby will (a) result in a violation of the Lender’s certificate of formation, limited liability company agreement or other governing documents, or (b) result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment or decree, which, for purposes of this clause (b), would reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse effect on the Lender.

assistant: No Conflicts
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 untried indictments, informations, or complaints. Section 217.490. The IAD contains an “anti-shuttling” provision found in Paragraph 5 of Article IV, which provides: If trial is not had on any indictment, information or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner’s being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to paragraph 5 of article V of this agreement, such indictment, information or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice. Section 217.490. The rights and protections created by the IAD are statutory rights, not fundamental or constitutional in nature. Kenneth-Smith v. State, 838 S.W.2d 113, 117 (Mo.App. E.D.1992); United States v. Black, 609 F.2d 1330, 1334 (9th Cir.1979)(<HOLDING>) As such, a defendant’s protections under the Options: A. recognizing that prison regulations designed to provide security are not only legitimate but are central to all other correctional goals B. holding that the protections of the iad are not founded on constitutional rights or the preservation of a fair trial but are designed to facilitate a defendants rehabilitation in prison and to avoid disruptions caused when charges are outstanding against the prisoner in another jurisdiction C. holding that the iad as construed by fex requires that a prisoner must be tried within 180 days of the date when his request for disposition is actu ally received by the state in which the charges are pending not when the prisoner provides that request to his custodial authorities D. holding that since the constitutional and statutory extradition provisions are not designed to protect fugitives but rather are designed to facilitate the administration of justice between states the failure to comply with established procedures does not deprive the fugitive of any protected right and therefore provides no basis for a 1983 claim E. holding a prisoner has no constitutional right to a job in prison

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the protections of the iad are not founded on constitutional rights or the preservation of a fair trial but are designed to facilitate a defendants rehabilitation in prison and to avoid disruptions caused when charges are outstanding against the prisoner in another jurisdiction
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: ‘unquestioned command’ of a dwelling may ... exceed the scope of the authority implicitly granted them by their warrant when they permit unauthorized invasions of privacy by third parties who have no connection to the search warrant or the officers’ purposes for being on the premises.” Bills v. Aseltine, 958 F.2d 697, 704 (6th Cir.1992) [hereinafter Bills 11 The Bills I court concluded: The ava d.2d 554 (1995); United States v. Sanusi, 813 F.Supp. 149, 160-61 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (“In viting private citizens whose presence is not necessary to the execution of the warrant to join the search party is a failure of public trust — one that indicates a disregard of the important values at stake when the government enters a person’s home.”). But see Parker v. Boyer, 93 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Stack alleges that Killian arranged for the Options: A. holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises B. holding that it is a violation of the fourth amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of third parties in the home was not in aid of the execution of the warrant C. holding that it is not selfevident that the police offend general fourthamendment principles when they allow members of the news media to enter someones house during the execution of a search warrant and because ayeni and buonocore only represent a trend in the law it was not clearly established at the time of the search that the defendants violated constitutional rights D. holding that an arrest warrant without a search warrant does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant E. holding consent involuntary when police told defendants grandmother they had a search warrant and she allowed them to enter and search

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that it is not selfevident that the police offend general fourthamendment principles when they allow members of the news media to enter someones house during the execution of a search warrant and because ayeni and buonocore only represent a trend in the law it was not clearly established at the time of the search that the defendants violated constitutional rights
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: care provider with respect to the negligent treatment, can shift through indemnification the responsibility for an enhanced injury. See Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal.App.2d 69, 38 Cal.Rptr. 490, 493-94 (1964); Gertz, 302 N.E.2d at 43-44; Hunt v. Ernzen, 252 N.W.2d 445, 448 (Iowa 1977); New Milford Bd. of Educ. v. Juliano, 219 N.J.Super. 182, 530 A.2d 43, 45 (1987); Musco v. Conte, 22 A.D.2d 121, 254 N.Y.S.2d 589, 594 (1964); see also Amrep Southwest, Inc. v. Shollenbarger Wood Treating, Inc. (In re Consolidated Vista Hills Retaining Wall Litigation), 119 N.M. 542, 545-46, 893 P.2d 438, 441-42 (1995) (discussing circumstances in which traditional indemnification arises between parties not in pari delicto). But see Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App. 428, 498 P.2d 502, 509 (1972) (<HOLDING>); Teepak, Inc. v. Learned 237 Kan. 320, 699 Options: A. holding that fouryear limitation period on indemnification claim does not commence until the party seeking indemnification has paid a judgment or has made a voluntary payment of its legal liability to an injured party B. holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because it was not an innocent party C. holding that indemnification without regard to the negligence of any party clearly and unequivocally provided bay drilling with indemnification for its own negligence D. holding that right of one joint tortfeasor to implead a second joint tortfeasor and have the jury apportion the damages according to their relative degrees of fault was not merely a procedural right but a substantive right E. holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because claim properly was for contribution

assistant: The best answer is B. holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because it was not an innocent 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all notices and other communications provided for hereunder shall be in writing and mailed or delivered, (a) if to Assignor, at the address specified in or pursuant to the Security Agreement (b) if to Assignee, at the address specified in or pursuant to the Security Agreement; or in any case at such other address as any of the persons listed above may hereafter notify the others in writing. All such notices and communications shall be mailed by overnight courier, and shall be effective when received.

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: states, "Plaintiff, George Walter Gaines, is a Seaman and files this action under the maritime laws of the United States as well as any applicable federal statutes." 2 . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h) states, in pertinent part: (h) Admiralty and Maritime Claims. A pleading or count setting forth a claim for relief within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction that is also within the jurisdiction of the district court on some other ground may contain a statement identifying the claim as an admiralty or maritime claim for the purposes of Rules 14(c), 38(c), 82.... If the claim is cognizable only in admiralty, it is an admiralty or maritime claim for those purposes whether so identified or not. 3 . See Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 111 S.Ct. 317, 112 L.Ed.2d 275 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Meaige v. Hartley Marine Corp., 925 F.2d 700, Options: A. recognizing the importance of the employers knowledge of the disability B. recognizing the right of recoupment in admiralty C. recognizing the diminished importance of the state policy factor D. recognizing importance of transcript to rehabilitation of debtor E. recognizing the importance of uniformity in admiralty jurisprudence

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing the importance of uniformity in admiralty jurisprudence
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 Administrative Agent shall have received (A) the audited Consolidated balance sheet of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries and the related audited statements of income and retained earnings and cash flows for the three Fiscal Years most recently ended prior to the Closing Date for which such financial statements are available and (B) unaudited Consolidated balance sheets of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries and related unaudited interim statements of income and retained earnings for each quarterly period ended since the last audited financial statements for which financial statements are available.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: are noncompensa-tory penalties, we look behind the statutory label (“penalty”) and examine the “actual effects” of the assessments. See id. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 2111. The Supreme Court summarized this functional analysis as follows: “ ‘A tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’ ” Id. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 2113 (quoting United States v. La Franca, 282 U.S. 568, 572, 51 S.Ct. 278, 280, 75 L.Ed. 551 (1931)); see id. (“if the concept of penalty means anything, it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission”). Although Washington describes the appropriate test, the State’s application of the test to the facts of this case (Bankr.W.D.Wash.1987) (<HOLDING>). In Cassidy, the Tenth Circuit concluded: The Options: A. holding that for purposes of former bankruptcy statute 11 usc 57j charge imposed on delinquent taxes is for interest and not penalty B. holding that accruing interest at the default interest rate was not a penalty but the addition of a 5 late charge on top of the default interest would have been unreasonable pursuant to 506b and would have therefore been a penalty C. recognizing a right to contribution D. holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact E. holding that state default charge of twentyfive percent imposed on debtor for failing to make timely contribution to state fund was penalty and not substitute for interest or compensation for actual loss and thus was not entitled to priority

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that state default charge of twentyfive percent imposed on debtor for failing to make timely contribution to state fund was penalty and not substitute for interest or compensation for actual loss and thus was not entitled to priority
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 Administrative Agent shall also have received all fees, costs and expenses due and payable pursuant to the applicable Engagement Letter and Sections 3.3 and 10.3 , if invoiced prior to the Effective Date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of any breach or threatened breach of any provision of this Section 3, in addition to any remedies at law, either party and will be entitled to seek equitable relief in the form of specific performance, temporary restraining order, temporary or permanent injunction or any other equitable remedy which may then be available.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for cancellation of removal. We recognize that we generally do not have jurisdiction to review “any ... decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security-” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Moreover, “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense.” Id. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Notwithstanding limitations on jurisdiction contained in § 1252(a)(2)(B)-(C), we are not precluded from reviewing constitutional claims or questions of law raised in a petition for review. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Savoury, 449 F.3d at 1311-12 (<HOLDING>). Applying the case law here, we conclude that Options: A. holding that a legal determination regarding an aliens eligibility for adjustment of status was not barred by the statute B. holding that aliens who pleaded not guilty and elected a jury trial are barred from seeking 212c relief C. holding that we have jurisdiction to review an aliens legal eligibility for relief under former ina 212c D. holding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review aliens eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal E. holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina 212c

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that we have jurisdiction to review an aliens legal eligibility for relief under former ina 212c
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: 450 (1999). The plaintiff fails to meet this burden. Garrett has produced scant evidence to show that his impairment substantially limits his ability to work. Garrett provides no evidence of the number of jobs from which he is precluded because of his impairment. The plaintiff has admitted that he can work in a variety of jobs. See Plaintiffs dep. pp. 176-177. Plaintiff admits that he can work most jobs that do not require “sport type activities”. Id. In fact, plaintiff has worked a variety of jobs since he was fired from Autozone. See id. at 226-231. Without some evidence that Garrett is precluded from a broad range of jobs, his impairment does not meet the definition of disability under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). See Foreman v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 117 F.3d 800, 806 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); See also, Skorup v. Modern Door Corp., 153 Options: A. holding that a plaintiff who could not perform some jobs because he wore a pacemaker was nevertheless still capable of performing most jobs in the workforce B. holding that the plaintiffs evidence that his back injury precluded him from performing at least 50 of the jobs previously available to him was enough to classify him as disabled under the ada C. holding plaintiff not substantially limited in working because plaintiff failed to present evidence of disqualification because of knee condition from any jobs in the geographic area to which she had reasonable access D. holding that similar impairments do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her impairment rendered the plaintiff unable to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes within a geographical area to which she had reasonable access E. holding that under pwdcra the inability to perform a particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation instead the impairment must significantly restrict an individuals ability to perform at least a wide range of jobs

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a plaintiff who could not perform some jobs because he wore a pacemaker was nevertheless still capable of performing most jobs in the workforce
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: detected. We thus hold that the probation officer’s decision to order Duff to undergo drug screening was not inconsistent with the trial court’s failure to require such testing. We now consider Duff’s claim that the drug testing was unreasonable and thus violated his fourth amendment rights. We assume but do not decide that the taking and testing of a urine sample constitutes a search under the fourth amendment. See Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753, 755 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Williams, 787 F.2d 1182, 1185 n. 5 (7th Cir.1986); Shoemaker v. Handel, 619 F.Supp. 1089, 1098 (D.N.J.1985), aff'd, 795 F.2d 1136 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 577, 93 L.Ed.2d 580 (1986); see also Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767-68, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1833-34, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Although the fourth amendment’s requirement Options: A. holding that blood alcohol content almost 30 over the limit together with testimony of intoxication at the time of driving was sufficient to convict contrasting a case in which the blood alcohol content was just barely over the limit which was insufficient to convict B. holding a warrantless blood test reasonable due to bloods rapid loss of its alcohol content C. holding that the fourth amendment is implicated by the withdrawal of blood to test its alcohol content D. holding blood testing for alcohol content a search E. holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the fourth amendment is implicated by the withdrawal of blood to test its alcohol content