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: in the eyes of the jury. But, because of the prosecution’s suppression, Kohring did not have the opportunity to cross-examine or impeach Smith as to that account. Taken together, the newly-disclosed information is material and, as a result, the prosecution violated Brady/Giglio. Ill We are left to decide the appropriate remedy. The government clearly should have disclosed a substantial amount of the information in question. However, we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude the prosecution “acted flagrantly, willfully, and in bad faith.” See United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2008). As a result, we do not exercise our supervisory authority by dismissing the Superceding Indictment. See id. (citing United States v. Kearns, 5 F.3d 1251, 1255 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>)). Nor are we able to conclude that the Options: A. holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient B. holding that for a plaintiff to recover on claim of negligent hiring the negligent hiring of the employee must have been the proximate cause of the injury at issue C. holding that even though the governments conduct may have been negligent or even grossly negligent it did not rise to the level of flagrant misconduct D. recognizing as viable actions in tort negligent hiring and negligent retention E. holding that section 4149 did not apply to the plaintiffs state law claims of breach of duty to protect foster care children from harm and of negligent supervision negligent entrustment and negligent failure to warn

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that even though the governments conduct may have been negligent or even grossly negligent it did not rise to the level of flagrant misconduct
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if a court decides that this subsection on `` no class actions '' is not enforceable or valid , then the entire section 17 ( agreement to arbitrate and class action waiver ) will be null and void ( i.e. , go away ) .

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: No failure on the part of Agent, Issuing Bank, or any Lender to exercise and no delay in exercising, and no course of dealing with respect to, any right, power, or privilege under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, power, or privilege under this Agreement preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power, or privilege. The rights and remedies provided for in this Agreement and the other Loan Documents are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights and remedies provided by law.

assistant: No Waivers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c)(1) (1982). This Court notes it is clear that Ford’s engines and transmissions were not eligible for “PD” status unless Ford paid duties on the merchandise before the merchandise entered the FTSZ and specifically elected “PD” status for the entries. (See Pl.’s Br. at 8; supra n. 2.) This Court also notes while Ford may have intended to elect “PD” status and to pay the duties as the engines and transmissions were entered into the FTSZ, as Ford itself admits, “for some inexplicable reason,” Ford failed to do so. (Pl.’s Br. at 27.) This Court does not find Ford was mistaken as to the ultimate nature of the merchandise, and so cannot find Ford made a mistake of fact in this case on that basis. See Zaki Corp. v. United States, 960 F.Supp. 350, 362-63 (CIT 1997) (<HOLDING>); Toban Co. v. United States, 960 F.Supp. 326, Options: A. holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims B. holding that plaintiffs stated a 349 claim where they alleged that defendants imported counterfeit good with the intent to cause confusion and mistake to deceive customers as to the source and origin of the products C. holding that insurance broker is generally agent of insured D. holding that an association of licensed customs brokers has standing to challenge an interim customs regulation allowing consignees to make informal entry of certain low value merchandise E. holding mistake of fact exists where broker unintentionally and nonnegligently was unaware of the physical nature of the imported merchandise and customs relied on agent to enter good properly

assistant: The best answer is E. holding mistake of fact exists where broker unintentionally and nonnegligently was unaware of the physical nature of the imported merchandise and customs relied on agent to enter good properly
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: merit-less.” See Rabideau v. City of Racine, 243 Wis.2d 486, 627 N.W.2d 795, 805 (2001) (noting that an action is frivolous when it cannot “be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law”); of. Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1 (describing a claim as not frivolous if it is based on “a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law”). Similarly, a claim is “indisputably meritless” when it clearly is procedurally barred, it asserts the infringement of a legal interest that plainly does not exist, or the record completely contradicts it. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827; Hodges, 332 Ill.Dec. 318, 912 N.E.2d at 1212; see also People v. Alcozer, 241 Ill.2d 248, 350 Ill. Dec. 1, 948 N.E.2d 70, 77 (2011) (<HOLDING>). A claim lacks an objective, good-faith basis Options: A. holding that claims raised in a postconviction motion cannot be relitigated in a habeas petition B. holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction C. holding that procedural defects can result in a conclusion that a postconviction petition is frivolous D. holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application without regard to the merits of the petition E. holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit was properly filed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that procedural defects can result in a conclusion that a postconviction petition is frivolous
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: Other than with respect to Taxes, which shall be governed solely by Section 2.20, the Borrower agrees to indemnify each Lender for, and to hold each Lender harmless from, any loss or expense (other than lost profits, including the loss of Applicable Margin) that such Lender actually sustains or incurs as a consequence of (a) any failure by the Borrower in making a borrowing of, conversion into or continuation of Eurocurrency Loans after the Borrower has given notice requesting the same in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, (b) any failure by the Borrower in making any prepayment of or conversion from Eurocurrency Loans after the Borrower has given a notice thereof in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement or (c) the making of a prepayment, conversion or continuation of Eurocurrency Loans on a day that is not the last day of an Interest Period with respect thereto. A reasonably detailed certificate as to (showing in reasonable detail the calculation of) any amounts payable pursuant to this Section 2.21 submitted to the Borrower by any Lender shall be presumptively correct in the absence of demonstrable error. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the payment of the Obligations.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Corporation and each of the Subsidiaries are conducting their business in compliance in all material respects with all laws, rules, regulations, decisions, directives and orders (including, without limitation, all regulations and orders of, or agreements with, the Board, the FDIC and any applicable state regulatory authorities) applicable to it.

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: the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Id. at 9-10, 112 S.Ct. 995. It is this latter caveat that, in our view, is key in this case. Assuming, for purposes of argument, that Duke’s action of locking the door to Cooler 4 while plaintiffs were inside can be considered a use of “force” within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment, we conclude that the evidence presented by Coon would not allow a jury to reasonably find that he experienced anything more than the minimum level of discomfort described in Hudson. In short, subjecting a typically-clothed inmate to a temperature of 39 degrees for approximately 20 minutes simply does not constitute the malicious and sadistic application of force. See Sow v. .Fortville Police Dep% 636 F.3d 293, 303 (7th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Sanilac Cnty., 606 F.3d 240, 251 Options: A. holding that excessive force claims are not subject to exhaustion requirement B. holding that a police officers rape of an arrestee was outside the scope of his employment C. holding that police officer did not subject arrestee to excessive force by requiring him to stay outside in cold temperatures during an investigation that lasted more than an hour D. holding that deputies use of a police dog is subject to excessive force analysis E. holding that a military police officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force suit when he objectively reasonably believed that he used reasonable force

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that police officer did not subject arrestee to excessive force by requiring him to stay outside in cold temperatures during an investigation that lasted more than an hour
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: by the DOT as involving very limited reasoning skills. Therefore, it is not inconsistent with a low level of intellectual functioning. In addition, plaintiffs work history was not extensive. He was 39 years old when the ALJ issued his decision. The evidence of record indicated that he had worked for a total of about seven years, and had been terminated from his last job some seven years before the ALJ issued his decision. [See AR 115-116, 142], Plaintiffs uncontroverted testimony was that he either obtained those jobs with the assistance of relatives or actually worked for relatives. Thus, the record as a whole does not support defendant’s contention that plaintiffs work history is materially inconsistent with an IQ signifying mild mental retardation. See Christner, 498 F.3d at 794 (<HOLDING>); Bailey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 1063, 1065 (8th Options: A. recognizing the principle that an administrative agency error should not work to a claimants detriment B. holding that the alj erred in rejecting the iq of a claimant whose work history was limited primarily to working for his father C. holding that work which may be deemed unsuitable at the inception of claimants unemployment and for a reasonable time thereafter may thereafter become suitable work when consideration is given to the length of unemployment and the prospects of obtaining customary work at claimants prior earning capacity D. holding that the claimants intermittent work history as a tree trimmer supported his iq E. holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the claimants intermittent work history as a tree trimmer supported his iq
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will, and will cause each of its Subsidiaries to, (a) keep and maintain all property material to the conduct of its business in good working order and condition, except for ordinary wear and tear, if the failure to do so, either individually or it the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, (b) maintain with financially sound and reputable insurance companies, insurance with respect to its properties and business, and the properties and business of its Subsidiaries, against loss or damage of the kinds customarily insured against by companies in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations and (c) cause the Administrative Agent to be named as an additional insured on all general liability insurance policies maintained by the Borrower and its Subsidiaries and maintain the lender loss payable endorsement with respect to all property/casualty policies covering tangible Collateral (or its equivalent). So long as no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, the Administrative Agent will release to the Borrower (or the applicable Subsidiary) any property/casualty insurance proceeds paid to the Administrative Agent to be used in a manner not prohibited by this Agreement.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not be vicariously asserted. " Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34, 99 S.Ct. 421, 425, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978) (quoting Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174, 89 S.Ct. 961, 966, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969)); accord State v. Sepulveda, 842 P.2d 913, 915 (Utah Ct.App.1992). "[Tlo challenge the [constitutional] propriety of a search, a defendant must first establish 'a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place' " State v. Scott, 860 P.2d 1005, 1007 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (quoting Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143, 99 S.Ct. at 430). T7 To determine whether a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy "we employ a two-step test." Sepulveda, 842 P.2d at 915. First, we examine whether the defendant has demonstrated "a subjective expectation of privacy in the searched area." r.1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Friedel, 714 N.E.2d 1231, 1235-37 Options: A. holding that car passenger who left her purse in her boyfriends car had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of her purse indeed a purse is a type of container in which a person possesses the highest expectations of privacy B. holding that bjecause a search of a students wallet purse or other bag carried on his or her person is undoubtedly a severe violation of subjective expectations of privacy individualized suspicion is a necessary element in determining reasonableness where the principal emptied the contents of the mjinors purse internal quotation marks and citation omitted C. holding that a search was justified when the police responded to a complaint that a woman at a school bus stop might have a gun in her purse the womans responses to police inquiries were unhelpful and she resisted the purse being taken from her D. holding that car passenger whose purse was found on floor behind drivers seat and searched had standing because a purse is clearly a container in which a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy E. holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that car passenger who left her purse in her boyfriends car had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of her purse indeed a purse is a type of container in which a person possesses the highest expectations of privacy
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: It is the intention of each of the parties hereto that the Existing Credit Agreement be amended and restated in its entirety pursuant hereto so as to preserve and continue the perfection and priority of all Liens securing Indebtedness and Obligations under the Existing Credit Agreement and that all Indebtedness and Obligations of the Borrower and the Guarantors hereunder and under the other Loan Documents shall be secured by the Liens evidenced under the Collateral Documents and that this Agreement does not constitute a novation or termination of the Indebtedness and Obligations existing under the Existing Credit Agreement. In addition, unless specifically amended hereby, each of the Loan Documents shall continue in full force and effect and that, from and after the Closing Date, all references to the “Credit Agreement” contained therein shall be deemed to refer to this Agreement. The Lenders hereby authorize the Administrative Agent to amend and restate each of the Security Agreement and the Guaranty, in form and substance satisfactory to the Administrative Agent in order to, among other things, reflect the amendment and restatement of the Existing Credit Agreement pursuant to this 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement is binding on the parties as of the date hereof, but will be effective as of the Closing Date and, except as otherwise set forth herein will continue in effect thereafter until the earlier of (a) the time when no shares of Common Stock are held by the MSD Parties or any other Holder and (b) its termination by the consent of all parties hereto or their respective successors in interest. This Agreement shall terminate immediately in all respects in the event of a termination of the Merger Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to renew their objection to the denial of such motions in order to preserve the issue for review. State v. Austin, 34 Wash.App. 625, 627, 662 P.2d 872, 874 (1983), aff'd on other grounds sub nom State v. Koloske, 100 Wash.2d 889, 676 P.2d 456 (1984); State v. Wilson, 29 Wash.App. 895, 898, 626 P.2d 998, 1001 (1981). Other Washington appellate courts had held that some motions in limine could and should be finally decided before trial, and defendants did not have to renew their objections to rulings on those motions or to evidence admitted as a result of such rulings. State v. Moore, 33 Wash.App. 55, 59-60, 651 P.2d 765, 768 (1982); State v. Latham, 30 Wash.App. 776, 780, 638 P.2d 592, 595 (1981), aff'd, 100 Wash.2d 59, 667 P.2d 56 (1983). See Kelly, 102 Wash.2d at 191, 685 P.2d at 568 (<HOLDING>). Here, however, Pilon can find no comfort even Options: A. recognizing conflict between circuits B. recognizing possible conflict between the cases C. recognizing an exception to the conflict rule where the conflict arose after the award of the contract D. recognizing conflict E. holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing conflict
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: Thomas housing project. The following construction was planned but not yet begun: 200 mixed-income rental units, 64 affordable rental housing units for the elderly, a 250-unit market rate rental retirement community, and 200 market rate condominium units; additional small-scale commercial ventures, which may be included in some of the new residential construction; and construction or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing (90 units) and affordable individually owned houses (50 units). Hurricane Katrina generally spared the existing housing units, and they are currently habitable. HANO indicates that it plans to finish the project, but it has not determined how Hurricane Katrina’s impact might change the its prior plans. The plaintiffs in the present case chall d 393 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents, & Options: A. holding substantive reasonableness sentencing challenge to be moot when defendant had completed prison sentence but addressing challenge to supervised release conditions B. holding that a challenge to a mining plan was moot where the action sought to be enjoined hadbeen completed C. holding appeal moot where tests that had been ordered under the preliminary injunction had already been car ried out D. holding the case to be moot where construction of the pro ject had been entirely completed E. holding that the plaintiffs claim was moot because the construction project which was the subject of the dispute had been completed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the case to be moot where construction of the pro ject had been entirely completed
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: district court properly based Hernandez’s criminal history score on his reentry date instead of the date he was found and arrested. B. Calculation of Criminal History Score We next turn to whether the district court clearly erred in making the factual finding that Hernandez last reentered on June 29, 1995. According to the PSR, Hernandez informed ICE officials that he last reentered the country on June 29, 1995. This statement was not challenged or controverted by any other evidence. The district court is entitled to rely on an unchallenged portion of a PSR. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (“[T]he district court may rely on undisputed statements in the PSR at sentencing.”); United States v. Charlesworth, 217 F.3d 1155, 1160-61 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In this case, not only was the date provided Options: A. holding that section 523a2c shifts the burden of production and not the burden of proof on the issue of intent only B. holding that defendant must establish the application of the limitationexclusion to the plaintiffs claim where defendant did not contest the plaintiffs assertion that defendant bore the burden of proof in this case because the limitation on benefits for mental and nervous conditions is a coverage exclusion and the plan documents contained no express provision regarding burden of proof C. holding that information in a psr was sufficient because the defendant offered no evidence to contradict the psr and instead only argued that the government had not sustained its burden of proof D. holding that defendants claim that state engaged in burdenshifting was without merit when state argued that defendant had not rebutted evidence and trial court instructed jury as to burden of proof E. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that information in a psr was sufficient because the defendant offered no evidence to contradict the psr and instead only argued that the government had not sustained its burden of proof
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: would occur nor a threat of prosecution for perjury. And, unlike in Webb, Mrs. Jaeger was not lectured on any specific consequences that might flow from her testimony. Additionally, the court expressly allowed defense counsel to explore any a (8th Cir.1998) (concluding that, although the conduct of the government and the district court in contacting the public defender and adjourning the proceedings to permit a witness, over her “unequivocal objection,” to consult a lawyer before testifying came close to overreaching, there was no error in the court’s warning of the consequences of perjury and the witness’ decision to not testify was on advice of counsel and not because of the actions of the judge or prosecutor); United States v. Santiago-Becerril, 130 F.3d 11, 24-26 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the district court carefully walked a Options: A. holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness B. holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary C. holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand D. holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case E. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable because it is invalid or in conflict with any law of any relevant jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement is, for any reason, held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, that holding will not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and this Agreement will be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been included.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: communicating with other users and with blizzard entertainment representatives , in writing or orally , is an integral part of world of warcraft and is referred to in this document together as `` chat '' .

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: Except as set forth below, and subject to the discretion of the Administrator to accelerate the vesting schedule, this Stock Option shall become vested with respect to the number of Option Shares on the dates indicated on Exhibit A ; provided that , Optionee’s Employment is through the applicable vesting date set forth on Exhibit A . In addition, if this Stock Option is subject to a Performance Measure (but not otherwise), Section 1(b) shall apply. For the avoidance of doubt, the vesting of this Stock Option may be accelerated automatically in certain circumstances described herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Lenders and each of the Issuing Lenders hereby irrevocably appoints PNC to act on its behalf as the Administrative Agent hereunder and under the other Loan Documents and authorizes the Administrative Agent to take such actions on its behalf and to exercise such powers as are delegated to the Administrative Agent by the terms hereof or thereof, together with such actions and powers as are reasonably incidental thereto. The provisions of this Section 10 [The Administrative Agent] are solely for the benefit of the Administrative Agent, the Lenders and the Issuing Lenders, and neither any Borrower nor any other Loan Party shall have rights as a third party beneficiary of any of such provisions.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the finding that the murder was committed during the course of a sexual battery or kidnapping was not erroneous. The United States Supreme Court indicated in Apprendi and Ring that there was one narrow exception to the Sixth Amendment requirement that a jury must find any fact that increases the maximum sentence: the fact of a prior conviction, as established in Almendarez-Torres. Ring, 536 U.S. at 597 n.4, 122 S.Ct. 2428; Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Although the Supreme Court has since suggested that the continued validity of Almendarez-Torres may be in question, it has not directly revisited the exception created in that case. See Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (<HOLDING>); Ring, 536 U.S. at 597 n.4, 122 S.Ct. 2428 Options: A. recognizing the prior conviction exception of almendareztorres B. holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi C. recognizing exception D. recognizing exception carved out by almendareztorres E. recognizing the narrow exception created by almendareztorres but noting that it was not directly at issue in alleyne

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing the narrow exception created by almendareztorres but noting that it was not directly at issue in alleyne
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: Subject to Section 6.7(b), nothing contained herein shall prohibit or in any way limit the ABL Collateral Agent or any other ABL Claimholder from objecting in any Insolvency or Liquidation Proceeding of any ABL Grantor or otherwise to any action taken by the Term Loan Collateral Agent or any of the other Term Loan Claimholders with respect to the ABL Priority Collateral, including the seeking by the Term Loan Collateral Agent or any other Term Loan Claimholder of adequate protection or the asserting by the Term Loan Collateral Agent or any other Term Loan Claimholder of any of its rights and remedies under the Term Loan Documents or otherwise, in each case in respect of the ABL Priority Collateral.

assistant: No Waivers
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: 524(c)(3). 7 . See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 524.04 at 524-34 (citing H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong.,1st Sess. 162-64 (1977); Report of the Bankruptcy Commission, H.R. Doc. 137, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., Part I, 177). 8 . 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6)(A). 9 . 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6)(B). 10 . 11 U.S.C. § 524(d). 11 . 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(3). 12 .Subsection (k)(6)(A) requires the debtor to sign a statement setting forth the amounts of the debtor’s current monthly income and expenses and, if the income less expenses does not leave enough to make the payments under the reaffirmation agreement, then offers the debtor an opportunity to rebut the presumption of undue hardship by explaining how he or she will afford to make the payments. 13 . 11 U.S.C. § 524(m) (emphasis added). 14 . The numbers for expe 1991) (<HOLDING>). 19 .Cf. In re Price, 370 F.3d 362, 379 (3d Options: A. holding a department store was not allowed to collect finance charges on its retail installment contracts and revolving charge accounts that were in excess of the interest rate allowed by statute however the store was allowed to assess finance charges in the amount allowed by statute B. holding that the meaning of allowed secured claim in 506a does not determine the meaning of allowed secured claim in 506d C. holding that punitive damages are not allowed under the flsa D. holding that the words allowed secured claim in 506d refer to a claim that is secured by a lien and allowed under 502 E. holding that ridethrough is allowed

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ridethrough is allowed
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 attend all court hearings including trial and arraignment and was required to contact Pretrial Services on a weekly basis, and he was prohibited from traveling outside of New Jersey. Id. Here it is uncontradicted that the plaintiff surrendered pursuant to an arrest warrant; therefore, the legal process requirement is met. She had her liberty restricted in the following manner: she surrendered pursuant to an arrest warrant and attended her arraignment, she was required to post $500.00 bond, and she was further required to attend all proceedings pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.Pro. 526. Gallo, controls and we find that the plaintiff had her liberty sufficiently restricted to be considered “seized” under the Fourth Amendment. See also Williams v. Fedor, 69 F.Supp.2d 649, 670 (M.D.Pa.1999) (<HOLDING>). Defendant Murray cites Bristow v. Clevenger, Options: A. holding that the defendants oral promise to appear was insufficient to amount to a required appearance within the meaning of the failure to appear statute B. holding a person who is not a member of the bar of any court may appear pro se but is not qualified to appear in the district court or in this court as counsel for others C. holding that a traffic ticket that required a plaintiff to appear at hearing and answer to charges was not a seizure D. holding that the requirements inherent in the criminal process that the accused submit to processing and appear in court as required are sufficient restraints on liberty to constitute a seizure E. holding that the failure to appear in court pursuant to a court order can constitute direct criminal contempt

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the requirements inherent in the criminal process that the accused submit to processing and appear in court as required are sufficient restraints on liberty to constitute a seizure
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: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this CAB Guaranty, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) under its Commercial Arbitration Rules, and any temporary or final judgment or award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any state or federal court in Tarrant County, Texas. All parties expressly waive their right to a jury trial for any such claim.

assistant: Arbitration
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 anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Executive specifically acknowledges and agrees that any breach or threatened breach of the restrictions contained in Section 8 of this Agreement is likely to result in irreparable injury to the Company and/or its Affiliates and that the remedy at law will be an inadequate remedy for such breach, and that in addition to any other remedy it may have in the event of a breach or threatened breach of Section 8 above, the Company and its Affiliates shall be entitled to enforce the specific performance of this Agreement by Executive and to seek both temporary and permanent injunctive relief (to the maximum extent permitted by law) without bond, without notice (to the maximum extent permitted by law), and without liability should such relief be denied, modified or violated (to the maximum extent permitted by law). Furthermore, in the event of any breach of the provisions of Section 8.1 or 8.2 above or a material and willful breach of any other provision in Section 8 above (the “ Forfeiture Criteria ”), the Company shall be entitled to cease making any severance payments being made hereunder, pending a final determination of damages that have ensured from such alleged breach. Executive acknowledges and agrees that this Section 9 is a material inducement to the Company entering into this Agreement.

assistant: Remedies
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: 3E1.1, comment (n.5). It is well settled that a defendant who exercises his constitutional right to a trial does not automatically forfeit the benefit of the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. McKinney, 15 F.3d 849, 853 (9th Cir.1994). For example, a defendant who goes to trial in order to challenge the validity of the government’s theory may, in certain circumstances, still receive a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Ochoa-Gaytan, 265 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. McKittrick, 142 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir.1998). Even if he contests his guilt at trial, there are rare circumstances in which a defendant who manifests genuine contrition for his acts may merit an adjustment. See McKinney, 15 F.3d at 853 (<HOLDING>). This case, however, does not present a Options: A. holding that adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is appropriate where the district court rebuffed a defendants attempts to plead guilty B. holding that courts mention of a guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility to defense counsel was not reversible error C. holding defendant was not entitled to acceptance of responsibility despite his plea of guilty where he attempted to suborn perjury D. holding that there was no miscarriage of justice where the defendant claimed that the government abused its discretion by refusing to request a threelevel downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility E. holding that a defendant should not receive an acceptance of responsibility adjustment when there is contradicting obstructive conduct

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is appropriate where the district court rebuffed a defendants attempts to plead guilty
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court grants defendant Greenwood Hospitality Management LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment [55] as to all claims and its Motion to Strike Each of Plaintiffs Declarations in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [76]. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Greenwood Hospitality Management LLC and against plaintiff Karen Hoosier. This is a final and appeal-able order. It is so ordered. 1 . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires that affidavits or declarations “used to support or oppose a motion for summary judgment must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on th , 604-05 (7th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Mach v. Will County Sheriff, 580 F.3d 495, Options: A. holding that an isolated comment is not direct evidence of discrimination even if a plaintiff interpreted it as motivated by a discriminatory animus B. recognizing that the seventh circuit consistently has held that isolated comments that are no more than stray remarks in the work place are insufficient to establish that a particular decision was motivated by discriminatory animus C. holding managers discriminatory remark indicative of age bias where buttressed by other evidence of discrimination and thus remark was not an isolated comment D. holding that direct evidence is evidence showing a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action E. holding that employer was entitled to summary judgment even if it conducted a shoddy investigation and subsequently made a poorly informed decision to fire plaintiff so long as there was no evidence that it was discriminatory animus that motivated the decision to conduct the investigation and terminate plaintiffs employment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an isolated comment is not direct evidence of discrimination even if a plaintiff interpreted it as motivated by a discriminatory animus
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: within three months to revoke the license. Although plaintiff’s license was renewed during the pendency of the first proceeding before the ZBA, the mistaken issuance of a license in violation of an ordinance does not result in application of estoppel against the City. (See City of Chicago v. Unit One Corp. (1991), 218 Ill. App. 3d 242, 246, 578 N.E.2d 194, 197-98.) Moreover, since plaintiff was aware that his operation of the auto repair shop was in jeopardy when he received the renewal notice, he should have been on notice that the renewal was in error, or at least that it was contingent upon the ZBA’s ruling. As the City points out, if it were estopped from enforcing the ordinance because of a mistakenly issued or renewed l 5 Ill. App. 3d 109, 111, 113, 282 N.E.2d 739, 740, 742 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, neither the oral assurances of a Options: A. holding that allegations that the city arbitrarily applied a zoning ordinance were insufficient to state a substantive due process claim and stating in dicta that the decision would be the same even if the city had knowingly enforced the invalid zoning ordinance in bad faith a badfaith violation of state law remains only a violation of state law B. holding that because the board of aldermen only decided whether to grant a variance under the zoning ordinance the superior court erred by determining the question of the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance which was never raised or considered by the board of aldermen C. holding seniorhousing zoning ordinance invalid as applied D. holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance E. holding that the city was not estopped from enforcing a zoning ordinance when a zoning department employee mistakenly stamped the plaintiffs application for a license to operate a laundromat to indicate compliance with the ordinance

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the city was not estopped from enforcing a zoning ordinance when a zoning department employee mistakenly stamped the plaintiffs application for a license to operate a laundromat to indicate compliance with the ordinance
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void or unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be modified or deleted in such manner so as to make this Agreement, as modified, legal and enforceable, and the remaining provisions hereof shall continue in full force and effect.

assistant: Severability