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: the shipping company records indicated the weight of each shipment, the court estimated the weight of marijuana in each shipment by multiplying the total shipment weight by sixty-two percent — the average weight percentage of marijuana found in the three discovered deliveries. The government prosecuted Willie and Luis Reveles in a joint trial. The jury found them both guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The jury also found the brothers guilty of possession with intent to distribute the marijuana. The court sentenced Willie to 262 months of imprisonment and Luis to 121 months. II A Willie first challenges his conviction based on Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Before the trial began, the prosecution Options: A. holding that admission of a postal inspectors testimony about an oral confession by a defendants codefendant violated the defendants sixth amendment right to crossexamine his codefendant who was unavailable because the codefendant asserted his right not to testify B. holding that the introduction of a jointly tried nontestifying codefendants statement violates the sixth amendment confrontation clause if the statement contains incriminating evidence concerning a defendant C. holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment D. holding that sixth amendment not violated when defendant makes incriminating statements after indictment to persons who are not related to the government E. holding that a defendants sixth amendment confrontation clause rights are violated when a court admits into evidence an incriminating statement given by a nontestifying codefendant

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a defendants sixth amendment confrontation clause rights are violated when a court admits into evidence an incriminating statement given by a nontestifying codefendant
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 authorized capital stock of the Company and the shares thereof issued and outstanding as of the date of this Agreement are set forth on Schedule 2.1(c) hereto. All of the outstanding shares of the Company’s Common Stock and any other security of the Company have been duly and validly authorized. Except as set forth on Schedule 2.1(c) hereto, no shares of Common Stock or any other security of the Company are entitled to preemptive rights or registration rights and there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip, rights to subscribe to, call or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities or rights convertible into, any shares of capital stock of the Company. Furthermore, except as set forth on Schedule 2.1(c) hereto, there are no contracts, commitments, understandings, or arrangements by which the Company is or may become bound to issue additional shares of the capital stock of the Company or options, securities or rights convertible into shares of capital stock of the Company. Except for customary transfer restrictions contained in agreements entered into by the Company in order to sell restricted securities or as provided on Schedule 2.1(c) hereto, the Company is not a party to or bound by any agreement or understanding granting registration or anti-dilution rights to any individual or corporation, partnership, trust, incorporated or unincorporated association, joint venture, limited liability company, joint stock company, government (or an agency or subdivision thereof) or other entity of any kind (each, a “ Person ”) with respect to any of its equity or debt securities. The Company is not a party to, and it has no knowledge of, any agreement or understanding restricting the voting or transfer of any shares of the capital stock of the Company. The offer and sale of all capital stock, convertible securities, rights, warrants, or options of the Company issued prior to the Closing complied with all applicable federal and state securities laws, and no holder of such securities has a right of rescission or claim for damages with respect thereto which could have a Material Adverse Effect. The Company has furnished or made available to the Purchasers true and correct copies of the Company’s Articles of Incorporation as amended and restated and in effect on the date hereof (the “ Articles ”), and the Company’s Bylaws as in effect on the date hereof (the “ Bylaws ”).

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: The License Agreement is amended by the addition of this Exhibit F, the Safety Data Exchange Agreement (the “ Safety Data Exchange Agreement ”), which is hereby attached to and incorporated therein. Unless otherwise noted, defined terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the defined meaning in the License Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: cites Gwaltney of Smithfield v. Chesapeake Bay Found., 484 U.S. 49, 60-61, 108 S.Ct. 376, 98 L.Ed.2d 306 (1987), which held that citizen suits under the Clean Water Act must be based on conduct that is ongoing or intermittent, not “wholly past.” However, Gwaltney left unresolved whether discharges are considered “ongoing” where, as here, the conduct that caused the violation has ceased, but the effects of the violation remain. The lower courts have split on this issue: Some courts, interpreting the [Clean Water Act] and Gwaltney expansively, have held that the continuing migration of pollutants from past discharges is sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Section 505(a)(1). See Umatilla Waterquality Protective Ass’n v. Smith Frozen Foods, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1312, 1322 (D.Or.1997) (<HOLDING>); Werlein v. United States, 746 F.Supp. 887, Options: A. holding that to achieve goals of cwa epa is required to establish and enforce technologybased limitations on individual discharges into the countrys navigable waters from point sources B. holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states C. holding a discharge of pollutants is ongoing if the pollutants continue to reach navigable waters even if the discharger is no longer adding pollutants to the point source itself D. holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters E. holding that a worker injured on actual navigable waters in the course of employment is covered under the lhwca

assistant: The best answer is C. holding a discharge of pollutants is ongoing if the pollutants continue to reach navigable waters even if the discharger is no longer adding pollutants to the point source itself
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 for the security interest granted to the Indenture Trustee pursuant to this Agreement and the other Liens permitted to exist on the Collateral by the Indenture, the Guarantor owns each item of the Collateral free and clear of any and all Liens or claims of others. The Guarantor is the record and beneficial owner of, and has good and marketable title to, the limited liability company interests of the Issuer, free of any and all Liens or options in favor of, or claims of, any other Person, except the security interest created by this Agreement, and such limited liability company interests constitute 100% of the ownership interest in the Issuer. No financing statement or other public notice with respect to all or any part of the Collateral is on file or of record in any public office, except such as have been filed in favor of the Indenture Trustee, for the benefit of the Secured Parties, pursuant to this Agreement.

assistant: Titles
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: restricted its coverage to ‘very limited rights of national citizenship’ and held that clause [sic] did not protect an individual’s right to pursue an economic livelihood against his own state.” Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220, 229 (6th Cir.2002). Although there has been some recent speculation that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should have a broader meaning, see Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999) (Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, dissenting) (speculating that the development of the Privileges and Immunities Clause was prematurely stifled by the Slaughter-House Cases), the Tenth Circuit has made clear that the Slaughter House Cases remain good law unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise. See Powers v. Harris, 379 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). 2. Equal Protection and Due Process Clause Options: A. holding that slaughter house cases remained good law and prevented a privileges and immunities challenge to a state licensinglaw B. recognizing common law privileges C. holding that direct public employment is not a right protected by the privileges and immunities clause D. holding that new hampshire policy which restricted practice of law by outofstate residents violated privileges and immunities clause E. holding that privileges and immunities clause protected right of noncitizen to engage in construction work and noting that the pursuit of a common calling is one of the most fundamental of those privileges protected by the clause

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that slaughter house cases remained good law and prevented a privileges and immunities challenge to a state licensinglaw
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 Employee shall be entitled to such benefits as may be available from time to time for senior executives of the Employer similarly situated to the Employee. All such benefits shall be awarded and administered in accordance with the Employer’s standard policies and practices. Such benefits may include, by way of example only, profit sharing plans, retirement or investment funds, dental, health and life insurance benefits and such other benefits as the Employer deems appropriate.

assistant: Benefits
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: recover for Warren Seeds’ death, Souletta must demonstrate that she is a proper claimant under DOHSA, which permits a decedent’s spouse, parent, child, or dependent relative to state a claim. 46 U.S.C.App. § 761. The law views a child born out of wedlock to be a “child” for the purpose of stating a DOHSA claim. Middleton v. Luckenbach, S.S. Co., Inc., 70 F.2d 326, 330 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 293 U.S. 577, 55 S.Ct. 89, 79 L.Ed. 674 (1934). Petitioners argue that Souletta has not proven that Warren Seeds was her father. DOHSA does not provide a specific standard for determining the paternity of a putative claimant, and most courts apply the most analogous state law to the paternity question in admiralty actions. See, e.g., In re Indus. Trans. Corp., 344 F.Supp. 1311, 1314 (E.D.N.Y.1972) (<HOLDING>); Risdal, 291 F.Supp. at 360-61 (holding that Options: A. holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state B. holding that state law not admiralty governs the validity of transfers of title C. holding court must apply state law when admiralty law is inconclusive or incomplete D. holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law E. holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is C. holding court must apply state law when admiralty law is inconclusive or incomplete
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: manner.” Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 706 (3d Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). “The FCRA places certain duties on those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies.” SimmsParris v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 652 F.3d 355, 357 (3d Cir. 2011). For example, furnishers are required to correct any information they later discover to be inaccurate, § 1681s-2(a)(2), and, when an account is placed for collection or charged to profit or loss, furnishers must notify the CRAs of the account’s “date of delinquency,” § 1681s-2(a)(5)(A). Tauro alleges that Capital One failed to comply with both of these provisions. Notably, however, the FCRA prohibits private enforcement of the duties arising under § 1681s-2(a). See Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853, 864 (3d Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the District Court properly Options: A. holding that suits under 42 usc 1983 do not override state immunity B. holding that 15 usc 1125a does not authorize suits by consumers C. holding that the eleventh amendment protects both states and state officials acting in their official capacity from suits brought pursuant to 42 usc 1983 D. holding that fcra explicitly precludes private suits for failure to comply with 16812a 15 usc 1681s2c and instead provides for enforcement of that provision by federal and state officials 15 usc 1681s2d E. holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that fcra explicitly precludes private suits for failure to comply with 16812a 15 usc 1681s2c and instead provides for enforcement of that provision by federal and state officials 15 usc 1681s2d
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company or its Affiliate shall be entitled to withhold and deduct from any future payments to the Participant all legally required amounts necessary to satisfy any and all withholding and employment-related taxes attributable to the Participant's exercise of an Incentive Stock Option or a "disqualifying disposition" of shares acquired through the exercise of an Incentive Stock Option as defined in Code Section 421(b), to require the Participant to remit an amount sufficient to satisfy such withholding requirements, or to require any combination thereof. In the event the Participant is required under the Incentive Stock Option Agreement to pay the Company, or make arrangements satisfactory to the Company respecting payment of, such withholding and employment-related taxes, the Administrator may, in its sole discretion, require the Participant to satisfy such obligation, in whole or in part, by delivering shares of Common Stock or by electing to have the Company withhold shares of Common Stock otherwise issuable to the Participant as a result of the exercise of the Incentive Stock Option. Such shares shall have a Fair Market Value equal to the minimum required tax withholding, based on the minimum statutory withholding rates for federal and state tax purposes, including payroll taxes, that are applicable to the supplemental income resulting from such exercise or disqualifying disposition. In no event may the Participant deliver shares, nor may the Company or any Affiliate withhold shares, having a Fair Market Value in excess of such statutory minimum required tax withholding. The Participant's delivery of shares or the withholding of shares for this purpose shall occur on or before the later of (i) the date the Incentive Stock Option is exercised or the date of the disqualifying disposition, as the case may be, or (ii) the date that the amount of tax to be withheld is determined under applicable tax law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Regardless of any action the Company and/or the Optionee’s employer (the “Employer”) take with respect to any or all income tax (including U.S. federal, state and local tax and/or non-U.S. tax), social insurance, payroll tax, payment on account or other tax-related withholding (“Tax-Related Items”), the Optionee acknowledges that the ultimate liability for all Tax-Related Items legally due by the Optionee is and remains the Optionee’s responsibility and that the Company and/or the Employer (i) make no representations or undertakings regarding the treatment of any Tax-Related Items in connection with any aspect of the Option, including the grant, vesting or exercise of the Options, the subsequent sale of any shares of Common Stock acquired at exercise and the receipt of any dividends; and (ii) do not commit to structure the terms of the grant or any aspect of the Option to reduce or eliminate the Optionee’s liability for Tax-Related Items.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the best of Purchasers’ knowledge, neither Purchaser is in violation of any applicable order, judgment, injunction, award or decree nor are they in violation of any federal, provincial, state, local, municipal or foreign law, ordinance or regulation or any other requirement of any governmental or regulatory body, court or arbitrator, other than those violations which, in the aggregate, would not have a material adverse effect on the Subsidiary or Purchasers and have not received written notice that any violation is being alleged.

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: Price understood that he had the right to conflict-free representation.” Id. Here, Movant testified at the plea hearing that he understood that, by pleading guilty, he was giving up certain rights, including the right to be tried by a jury, confront witnesses, and present evidence. Movant also testified that, before making his statement to the police, he was “advised that [he] had the right to be represented by a lawyer, and if [he] did not have the money to hire one, one would be appointed for [him] before answering any questions ...” However, there is no indication in the record that the plea court or counsel informed Movant that, if Movant could not afford counsel at trial, the court would appoint trial counsel for him. Cf. Phillips v. State, 356 S.W.3d 179, 183 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (<HOLDING>). Nor does Movant’s tentative expression of Options: A. holding that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires B. holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense C. holding that the movants assertion that he failed to advise the plea court of counsels alleged deficiencies because he blamed himself for his lack of funds was undermined by the fact that the plea court advised the movant that he had the right to appointed counsel if he could not afford to pay for counsel D. holding that at resentencing the district court was entitled to assume that the waiver was still in effect and was not required to again advise defendant of his right to counsel where defendant had waived counsel at the plea stage E. holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the movants assertion that he failed to advise the plea court of counsels alleged deficiencies because he blamed himself for his lack of funds was undermined by the fact that the plea court advised the movant that he had the right to appointed counsel if he could not afford to pay for 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Service and the County. Id. at 1246. In United States v. Emery County, No. 92-C-1069S, ¶ 6 (D. Utah, consent decree entered Dec. 15, 1992), litigation between a Utah county and the BLM was resolved by entry of a consent decree providing for advance notice to the BLM of any improvements beyond routine maintenance “so that both the County and the BLM may be satisfied that the proposed work on the R.S. 2477 highway is reasonable and necessary and that no unnecessary or undue degradation to the public lands would occur thereby.” These decisions are consistent with holdings of circuit courts that changes in roads on R.S. 2477 rights of way across federal lands are subject to regulation by the relevant federal land management agencies. See Clouser v. Espy, 42 F.3d 1522, 1538 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Vogler, 859 F.2d 638, 642 Options: A. holding under basic principles of property law that easement rights are subject to regulation by the forest service as the owner of the servient estate B. holding that regardless whether the trails in question are public highways under rs 2477 they are nonetheless subject to the forest service regulations C. holding in suit under the administrative procedure act challenging us forest service approval of forest development plan that injury to aesthetic conservational or recreational interests is sufficient to confer standing D. holding that national forest service had authority to forbid opening rs 2477 routes to motorized travel E. holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that regardless whether the trails in question are public highways under rs 2477 they are nonetheless subject to the forest service regulations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall defend and indemnify members of the Board, officers and Employees of the Company or of a Parent or Subsidiary to whom authority to act for the Board, the Administrator or the Company is delegated (“ Indemnitees ”) to the maximum extent permitted by law against (i) all reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the defense of any claim, investigation, action, suit or proceeding, or in connection with any appeal therein (collectively, a “ Claim ”), to which any of them is a party by reason of any action taken or failure to act in connection with the Plan, or in connection with any Award granted under the Plan; and (ii) all amounts required to be paid by them in settlement the Claim (provided the settlement is approved by the Company) or required to be paid by them in satisfaction of a judgment in any Claim. However, no person shall be entitled to indemnification to the extent he is determined in such Claim to be liable for gross negligence, bad faith or intentional misconduct. In addition, to be entitled to indemnification, the Indemnitee must, within thirty (30) days after written notice of the Claim, offer the Company, in writing, the opportunity, at the Company’s expense, to defend the Claim. The right to indemnification shall be in addition to all other rights of indemnification available to the Indemnitee.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: may not know the time of the suspect's last drink, the amount of aleohol consumed, or the rate at which the suspect will metabolize alcohol. Finally, an officer cannot know how long it will take to obtain the blood sample once the suspect is brought to the hospital Under a totality of the cireumstances test, an officer would be called upon to speculate on each of these considerations and predict how long the most probative evidence of the defendant's blood aleohol level would continue to exist before a blood sample was no longer reliable.[ ] The court also directly addressed the possibility of obtaining a telephonic warrant: Shriner also contends that police may obtain telephonic warrants quickly and, therefore, the police can easily obtain the relevant evidence they need with a 8) (<HOLDING>); State v. Moylett, 313 Or. 540, 836 P.2d 1329, Options: A. holding that the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream does not present a per se exigency and that consistent with fourth amendment principles exigency in drunkdriving cases must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances B. holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation C. holding that bloodalcohol dissipation does not create a per se exigency with respect to the warrant requirement D. holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se E. holding such agreements to be per se illegal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that bloodalcohol dissipation does not create a per se exigency with respect to the warrant requirement
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 the state, he had on several occasions aided in investigations and acted as an informant on numerous previous occasions. At the evidentiary hearing, Maxwell learned for the first time that Storch had assisted the LAPD’s forgery division in the investigation of multiple forgery cases pri- or to Maxwell’s trial. As this court explained in Benn, “[t]he state argues that this undisclosed evidence about [the informant’s] history was not material; however ... undisclosed evidence that an informant had previously participated in a ... investigation was important impeachment evidence that could have been used to discredit the informant’s trial testimony that he had not previously participated in that type of investigation.” Benn, 283 F.3d at 1058; see also Shaffer, 789 F.2d at 688-89 (<HOLDING>). In light of the import of Storch’s testimony, Options: A. holding exclusion of testimony from defendants wife at defendants trial was not required under spousal testimony privilege where both spouses participated in unlawful enterprise of transporting illegal aliens and wifes testimony concerned matters prior to their marriage B. holding that where defendant sought to exclude evidence prior to trial and again just prior to witnesss testimony at issue it was not necessary for defendant to object to testimony when it was actually put before jury C. holding that prior adjudication barred a claim that arose out of the same transactions and that could have been raised in prior suit D. holding that defendants undisclosed prior involvement in a state investigation contradicts his prior testimony and was material E. holding that where a witness who testifies under oath and is subject to crossexamination in a prior state court proceeding explicitly refuses to answer the same questions at trial the refusal to answer is inconsistent with his prior testimony

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defendants undisclosed prior involvement in a state investigation contradicts his prior testimony and was material
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: After giving effect to this Amendment, each of the Obligors is in compliance with all terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents on its part to be observed and performed and no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing.

assistant: No Defaults
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: her recollection of the interview. The Federal Rules of Evidence permit witnesses to use reports to refresh their recollection. See Fed. R.Evid. 612. The testimony at trial revealed that Agent Denny prepared for trial by meeting with an Assistant U.S. Attorney and reviewing the FBI reports relating to Muhammad’s arrest and subsequent interview. Agent Denny testified that although Agent Gandolfo prepared the FBI 302 covering Muhammad’s interview, she reviewed that report for accuracy, made corrections to it, and signed it. In essence, the report was that of both Agent Gandolfo and Agent Denny. Agent Denny added that although she did not have independent recollection of all the ques 2198, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979); see also United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1221 (7th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bastanipour, 697 F.2d 170, Options: A. holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing B. holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment C. holding that the governments failure to produce original 302s did not violate the confrontation clause D. holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause E. holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the governments failure to produce original 302s did not violate the confrontation clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall withhold from any amount payable to an Eligible Employee pursuant to this Plan, and shall remit to the appropriate governmental authority, any income, employment or other tax the Company is required by applicable law to so withhold from and remit on behalf of such Eligible Employee.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During Executive’s employment, the Company shall maintain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance that is applicable to Executive and shall indemnify Executive and hold Executive harmless from and against any claim, loss or cause of action arising from or out of Executive’s performance prior to or after the Commencement Date (and within the scope of his employment) as an officer, director or employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries or other affiliates or predecessors or in any other capacity, including any fiduciary capacity, in which Executive serves at the Company’s request, in each case to the maximum extent permitted by applicable corporate law and, to the extent more favorable, to the maximum extent permitted under the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws. On the Commencement Date, the Company shall execute and deliver to Executive an Indemnification Agreement, in the form adopted by the Board, pursuant to which the Company agrees to indemnify Executive and advance defense costs and expenses. The rights under this Section 19 shall in all cases be on terms no less favorable to Executive than to other senior executives of the Company and shall survive the termination of employment until the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in traffic safety and community aesthetics would be achieved less effectively without the ordinance’s prohibition on EMCs. We give some respect to “the accumulated, common-sense judgments of local lawmakers and of the many reviewing courts that billboards are real and substantial hazards to traffic safety.” Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 509, 101 S.Ct. 2882 (plurality opinion). It is given that a billboard can constitute a traffic hazard. It follows that EMCs, which provide more visual stimuli than traditional signs, logically will be more distracting and more hazardous. See Chapin Furniture Outlet, Inc. v. Town of Chapin, 2006 WL 2711851, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept.20, 2006), vacated on other grounds by Chapin Furniture Outlet, Inc. v. Town of Chapin, 2007 WL 3193854 (4th Cir. Oct.30, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, plaintiffs own witness stated that Options: A. holding in the context of emc regulations that the towns judgment that flashing or scrolling signs constitute a traffic hazard is not unreasonable B. holding that the bia rule is unreasonable in this context C. holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring D. holding that parked police vehicle could not constitute other traffic E. holding that vehicular search incident to arrest for traffic offense is unreasonable under state constitution

assistant: The best answer is A. holding in the context of emc regulations that the towns judgment that flashing or scrolling signs constitute a traffic hazard is not unreasonable
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: with Oreskovich’s findings and testified that he believed the gun and the arm were purposefully staged to mislead investigators. Dr. Pustilnik, the medical examiner, testified that features of Jackie’s wound indicated that the gun was pressed tightly to her head when it discharged, contradicting Cantu’s demonstration during his videotaped statement of how the shooting occurred. Pustilnik also testified that the evidence — including powder residue on Jackie’s hand, the angle of the bullet, and the muzzle imprint on her forehead — was inconsistent with Cantu’s defensive theory that the shooting was an accident. In his opinion, the evidence was also inconsistent with the theory that the gun fired during a struggle over the gun. Although Cantu presented e San Antonio 1985, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is Options: A. holding evidence sufficient to support murder conviction where appellants defensive theories of intentional or accidental selfinflicted wound occurring during struggle contradicted by physical evidence theory B. holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source C. holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction D. holding evidence sufficient to support jurys verdict when physical evidence including evidence gun was fired from a distance greater than appellant told police was inconsistent with accidental discharge during a struggle E. holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory

assistant: The best answer is A. holding evidence sufficient to support murder conviction where appellants defensive theories of intentional or accidental selfinflicted wound occurring during struggle contradicted by physical evidence theory
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 Distribution Agent represents and warrants that it is duly registered as a broker-dealer under FINRA, the Exchange Act and the applicable statutes and regulations of each state in which the Placement Shares will be offered and sold, except such states in which the Distribution Agent is exempt from registration or such registration is not otherwise required. The Distribution Agent shall continue, for the term of this Agreement, to be duly registered as a broker-dealer under FINRA, the Exchange Act and the applicable statutes and regulations of each state in which the Placement Shares will be offered and sold, except such states in which it is exempt from registration or such registration is not otherwise required, during the term of this Agreement. The Distribution Agent shall comply with all applicable law and regulations, including, but not limited to, Regulation M, in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, including the issuance and sale through the Distribution Agent of the Placement Shares.

assistant: Representations
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 Participant’s rights and interests under the Plan may not be assigned or transferred by the Participant. The Plan shall be an unsecured, unfunded arrangement. To the extent the Participant acquires a right to receive payments from the Company under the Plan, such right shall be no greater than the right of any unsecured general creditor of the Company. The Company shall not be required to segregate any amounts credited to any Accounts, which shall be established merely as an accounting convenience. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to create a trust of any kind or any fiduciary relationship between the Company and any Participant. The Plan shall be binding on the Company and any successor in interest of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York without regard to the conflict of laws principles thereof. With respect to any suit, action or proceedings relating to this Agreement (“ Proceedings ”), each party irrevocably (i) submits to the nonexclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York and the United States District Court located in the Borough of Manhattan in New York City and (ii) waives any objection that such party may have at any time to the laying of venue of any Proceedings brought in any such court, waives any claim that such Proceedings have been brought in an inconvenient forum and further waives the right to object, with respect to such Proceedings, that such court does not have any jurisdiction over such party. Nothing in this Agreement precludes either party from bringing Proceedings in any other jurisdiction, nor shall the bringing of Proceedings in any one or more jurisdictions preclude the bringing of Proceedings in any other jurisdiction. The Loan Obligation Manager irrevocably consents to the service of any and all process in any action or proceeding by the mailing or delivery of copies of such process to the Loan Obligation Manager at the office of the Loan Obligation Manager, 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, 9th Floor, Uniondale, New York 11553, Attention: Executive Vice President — Structured Securitization or such other address as the Loan Obligation Manager may advise the Issuer in writing. The Issuer consents to the service of any and all process in any action or proceeding by the mailing or delivery of copies of such process to CT Corporation System at 111 8 th Avenue, New York, New York 10011 (and any successor entity), as its authorized agent to receive and forward on its behalf service of any and all process which may be served in any such suit, action or proceeding in any such court and agrees that service of process upon CT Corporation System shall be deemed in every respect effective service of process upon it in any such suit, action or proceeding and shall be taken and held to be valid personal service upon it. Each party hereto agrees that a final judgment in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: appeal to this court is untimely, thereby depriving us of jurisdiction. Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR, provides that the notice of appeal from a civil action shall be served on respondents within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment. Although timely motions for JNOV, to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial stay the time for appeal until such time as written notice of entry of the order granting or denying the motions is received, they do not extend the time for appeal when, as in the current situation, the subsequent motions are merely restatements of previous motions. Recently, in Collins Music Co. v. IGT, 353 S.C. 559, 579 S.E.2d 524 (Ct.App.2002), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 303, 157 L.Ed.2d Co., 349 S.C. 216, 562 S.E.2d 615 (2002) (<HOLDING>), we held that because IGT’s Rule 59(e) motion Options: A. holding that motions requesting reconsideration of interlocutory orders do not toll the time for seeking review under rule 21 ala r app p B. holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal C. holding that successive new trial or jnov motions do not toll the time for serving the notice of appeal D. holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal E. holding that successive rule 59e motions unlike timely filed ones do not toll the time for appealing

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that successive new trial or jnov motions do not toll the time for serving the notice of appeal
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: Stat. § 7B-llll(a)(2) and A.C.F. are satisfied. This assignment of error is overruled. IV: Hearsay In his next argument, respondent contends that the trial court erred by overruling his objections to the admission of the DSS file, testimony with respect to the contents of the file, and other tes timony that constituted inadmissible hearsay. We disagree. Even assuming arguendo that the records contain inadmissible hearsay, respondent has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s order must be reversed. Respondent does not demonstrate prejudice in his argument on appeal, which is necessary for this Court to reverse the trial court’s order. See In re T.M., 180 N.C. App. 539, 548, 638 S.E.2d 236, 241-42 (2006) (citing In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C. App. 771, 775, 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, respondent makes a general claim that Options: A. holding that even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal B. holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice C. holding that even if evidence admitted in error admission must result in material prejudice to warrant reversal D. holding that even if there is error in failing to award nominal damages to a plaintiff such error is not a basis for reversal E. holding to warrant reversal the appellant must show both the error of the ruling and resulting prejudice

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal
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 deemed to have commenced on April 27, 2016 (the “Effective Date”) and shall continue for a period through April 26, 2017, after which time the Agreement will automatically renew for additional one (1) year terms. Either party may terminate this contract at any time with or without cause by providing the other written notice of termination. In the event of such notice, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall remain in effect and apply to any Candidates that have previously been introduced to Company by Advisor.

assistant: Terms