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: ACCA’s ‘listed examples — burglary, arson, extortion, or crimes involving explosives’ in that they ‘typically involve purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct.’ ” United States v. Jones, 574 F.3d 546, 550 (8th Cir.2009) (quoting Begay, 553 U.S. at 142, 144-45, 128 S.Ct. 1581). In addressing this standard, our recent decision in United States v. Hennecke is informative. 590 F.3d 619 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 78, 178 L.Ed.2d 50 (2010). There we held that stealing from a person is a crime of violence under the residual clause because it “always poses a risk that the victim of this direct, unlawful contact will detect what is happening, resulting in a violent face-to-face confrontation.” Id. at 623; see also United States v. Parks, 620 F.3d 911, 915 (8th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). As Hennecke demonstrates, while the crime Options: A. holding that burglary is violent felony B. holding south carolina conviction for failure to stop for a blue light to be violent felony under acca because prohibited conduct creates potential for confrontation and violence C. holding that when an inmate escapes from a guarded facility he acts with purposeful violent and aggressive behavior and creates a substantial risk of violent confrontation D. holding that all escapes qualify as violent felonies E. holding that when the factual issue is as between the defendant and the other person who was the aggressor the defendant may introduce evidence of the other persons violent or aggressive character

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when an inmate escapes from a guarded facility he acts with purposeful violent and aggressive behavior and creates a substantial risk of violent confrontation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Closing Date, no Loan Party has any Subsidiaries other than those specifically disclosed in Part (a) of Schedule 5.13 , and all of the outstanding Equity Interests in such Subsidiaries have been validly issued, are fully paid and non-assessable and are owned by a Loan Party in the amounts specified on Part (a) of Schedule 5.13 free and clear of all Liens except those created under the Collateral Documents. As of the Closing Date, no Loan Party has any equity investments in any other corporation or entity other than those specifically disclosed in Part (b) of Schedule 5.13 . As of the Closing Date, all of the outstanding Equity Interests in the Borrower have been validly issued, are fully paid and non-assessable and are owned by Intermediate Holdings in the amounts specified on Part (c) of Schedule 5.13 free and clear of all Liens except those created under the Collateral Documents. Set forth on Part (d) of Schedule 5.13 is a complete and accurate list of all Loan Parties, showing as of the Closing Date (as to each Loan Party) the jurisdiction of its incorporation, the address of its principal place of business and its U.S. taxpayer identification number or, in the case of any non-U.S. Loan Party that does not have a U.S. taxpayer identification number, its unique identification number issued to it by the jurisdiction of its incorporation.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided herein, and unless the context shall clearly require otherwise, all words and terms used in this ELEVENTH Amendment shall have the respective meanings given to them in the Composite Lease Agreement for all purposes of this ELEVENTH Amendment.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: acts void ab initio, and the cases lend support to the Bankruptcy Court’s holding. Having considered the available authority, the Court concludes that the Mississippi legislature intended to protect LLCs from the unauthorized acts of their members. It did so by passing section 79-29-303(2)(a) and then reemphasizing the point in 79-29-303(4). Earwood had no authority to bind Kinwood, and the conveyance was void ab initio. The Court therefore affirms the Bankruptcy Court’s holding. BankPlus alternatively urges the Court to impose an equitable lien on the property in the amount of the unpaid Northlake promissory notes. BankPlus failed to raise this issue before the Bankruptcy Court and therefore waived the argument. See In re OCA, Inc., 552 F.3d 413, 424 (5th Cir.2008) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 6 F.3d Options: A. holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered B. holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal C. holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal D. holding that issues not properly presented to the bankruptcy court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal E. holding that claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that issues not properly presented to the bankruptcy court cannot be raised for the first time on 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Restricted Person will (a) timely file all Tax Returns including any extensions, (b) timely pay all material taxes, assessments, and other governmental charges or levies imposed upon it or upon its income, profits or property before the same become delinquent, (c) within 120 days past the original invoice billing date therefor, pay and discharge all Liabilities owed by it on ordinary trade terms to vendors, suppliers and other Persons providing goods and services used by it in the ordinary course of its business, (d) pay and discharge before the same becomes delinquent all other material Liabilities now or hereafter owed by it, other than royalty payments suspended in the ordinary course of business, and (e) maintain appropriate accruals and reserves for all of the foregoing in accordance with GAAP. Each Restricted Person may, however, delay paying or discharging any of the foregoing so long as it is in good faith contesting the validity thereof by appropriate proceedings, if necessary, and has set aside on its books adequate reserves therefore that are required by GAAP.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Service will be provided for the duration of the applicable Transition Period and will lapse automatically thereafter or at the time such Service is terminated prior to the expiration of the Transition Period in accordance with Section 4.2(b) . This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2018.

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: Judgment A summary judgment motion must be granted if there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), not, as Appellant states, “if there are any genuine issues of fact.” “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In considering the motion for summary judgment, the district court properly relied on the state trial transcript and not solely on Walker’s Rule 56 pleadings. See Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc., 950 F.2d 481, 485 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We review a grant of Options: A. holding district court not required to uncover disputed facts when considering summary judgment motion B. holding that the entire record may be examined when considering a summary judgment motion C. holding that by considering matters outside of the pleadings the trial court converted a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion D. holding district court did not err by considering a contract central to the dispute without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment E. holding that where a court considering a rule 12b6 motion relies on matters outside the pleading the motion must be treated as a rule 56 motion for summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the entire record may be examined when considering a summary judgment motion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: already received some rehabilitation; he successfully completed Phase I of the SOTP. Further, in denying Sullivan’s grievance request for “immediate” enrollment in Phase II of the SOTP, the SCDC simply stated that there was no space in the program, but indicated that there was a waiting list. If room becomes available, it may even become possible for Sullivan to enroll in Phase II. In our opinion, the South Carolina Constitution does not require that the SCDC grant Sullivan enrollment in SOTP II. To interpret the constitutional mandate in Article XII, § 2, as requiring the SCDC to provide this specific program, would make the ALJD and then the judicial branch micro-managers of the prison system. See Abbeville County Sch. Dist. v. State, 335 S.C. 58, 68-69, 515 S.E.2d 535, 541 (1999) (<HOLDING>). In addition, such a holding would conflict Options: A. recognizing that under the act states are granted federal funds to provide disabled children with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment B. holding that a federallyfunded program in which public school teachers provided remedial education to disadvantaged children in parochial schools as well as public schools did not violate the establishment clause C. holding legislature was required to provide a system of free education to the public including programs for the handicapped D. holding that sc const art xi 3 which requires the general assembly to provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public education guarantees only a minimally adequate education and does not call for this court to dictate what programs are to be used in this states public schools E. holding question of what constitutes proper care and education of children is area of public concern

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that sc const art xi 3 which requires the general assembly to provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public education guarantees only a minimally adequate education and does not call for this court to dictate what programs are to be used in this states public schools
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 Kellogg. DCC did not need the participation of Coachman or Olympic Mills to collect the money Rivera had retained in breach of the Subordination Agreement. When Coachman and Olympic Mills eventually sought intervention as of right, the interests they advanced flowed directly from their status as debtors-in-possession. Critically, these interests did not arise until Coachman and Olympic Mills filed for bankruptcy on November 26, 2001, almost a month after DCC filed suit against Rivera. See Free-port-McMoRan, Inc., 498 U.S. at 428, 111 S.Ct. 858 (a nondiverse dispensable party that had no interest in the outcome of the litigation until sometime after suit was commenced did not defeat diversity jurisdiction); Aurora Loan Servs., Inc. v. Craddieth, 442 F.3d 1018, 1025 (7th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>); Salt Lake Tribune Publ’g Co., LLC v. AT & T Options: A. holding that diversity jurisdiction was not destroyed by the intervention of a nondiverse party whose claims arose in the course of a foreclosure proceeding after it obtained the certificate of sale B. holding that res judicata does not bar those claims that arose after the original pleading is filed in the earlier proceeding C. holding that a nonstatutory postponement does not constitute an irregularity in the foreclosure proceeding itself that could justify setting aside a foreclosure sale D. holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale E. holding that after a judgment entry grants a decree of foreclosure and order of sale the foreclosure action cannot be dismissed as the judgment is final

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that diversity jurisdiction was not destroyed by the intervention of a nondiverse party whose claims arose in the course of a foreclosure proceeding after it obtained the certificate of sale
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 permitting a party’s delay in moving for disqualification to justify the continuance of a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility.” Emle Indus., Inc. v. Patentex, Inc., 478 F.2d 562, 574 (2d Cir.1973). See also Pastor v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 951 F.Supp. 27, 33 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (“ ‘In this circuit, laches is generally not a defense to a motion to disqualify.’ ” (citations omitted)); Gov’t of India v. Cook Indus., Inc., 422 F.Supp. 1057, 1059-60 n. 4 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (“[L]aches is normally not a defense to a motion to disqualify.”). The Second Circuit noted that in extreme cases delay in making a motion for disqualification might be given some weight but that “the court will not bar a claim on that ground where no prejudice has resulted from the delay.” 478 F.2d at 574. (<HOLDING>). See also British Airways, PLC v. Port Options: A. holding that a fivemonth delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not bar the motion where there was a reasonable explanation for the delay B. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly rejecting a waiver argument where the motion to disqualify was filed after a threemonth delay C. holding that a threeyear delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not warrant barring such claim where the party seeking disqualification did not demonstrate any prejudice as a result D. holding that a year delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not bar the motion where there was no evidence that the motion was inspired by dilatory tactics E. holding that a tenmonth delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of prejudice and because disqualification is in the public interest where there is an ethical violation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a threeyear delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not warrant barring such claim where the party seeking disqualification did not demonstrate any prejudice as a result
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: to the full extent permissible by law , amazon will not be liable for any damages of any kind arising from the use of any amazon service , or from any information , content , materials , products ( including software ) or other services included on or otherwise made available to you through any amazon service , including , but not limited to direct , indirect , incidental , punitive , and consequential damages , unless otherwise specified in writing .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: Defendant was threatened by anyone, or promised anything other than the plea agreement that caused him to enter the pleas against his wishes, to which Defendant answered, “No, sir.” Finally the trial court asked if Defendant entered the pleas of his own free will, fully understanding what he was doing. Defendant answered, “Yeah, I do.” In light of this colloquy, Defendant’s signature on the Transcript of Plea, and the trial court’s statement that Defendant’s sentence for felony assault on a handicapped person was “contingent upon your performance on the misdemeanors[,]” we hold the trial court did not err by accepting Defendant’s guilty plea to felony assault on a handicapped person as a product of his informed choice. See State v. Salvetti, 202 N.C. App. 18, 29, 687 S.E.2d 698, 705 (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 364 N.C. 246, 699 S.E.2d Options: A. holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing B. holding that a failure to inform the defendant of the minimum possible sentence meant that the defendant did not fully understand the consequences of his plea and his rights were therefore automatically substantially affected C. holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea D. holding that a courts inquiry as to disputed facts in connection with a prior conviction is limited to the terms of the charging document a plea agreement a transcript of the plea colloquy or a comparable judicial record E. holding that in light of the trial courts inquiry the defendants verbal responses and the defendants answers to the questions on the transcript of plea the trial court did determine that defendant was fully informed of the consequences of his choice to enter an alford plea

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in light of the trial courts inquiry the defendants verbal responses and the defendants answers to the questions on the transcript of plea the trial court did determine that defendant was fully informed of the consequences of his choice to enter an alford plea
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 captions and section and paragraph headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. The construction of this Agreement shall not take into consideration the party who drafted or whose representative drafted any portion of this Agreement, and no canon of construction shall be applied that resolves ambiguities against the drafter of the document.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: motive from circumstantial evidence.” Id. Among the factors on which the Board may base such inferences are “the timing of the discharges in relation to the union activity [and] the simultaneous nature of otherwise unconnected dismissals.” Id. at 580. Both the timing and the nature of the discharges in this case suggest anti-union motivations. The firings occurred just as Local 23’s campaign was picking up steam, and the employees, who worked in various different departments, were all dismissed on the same day for entirely disparate reasons. Furthermore, of the eight employees laid off, six were union supporters, and this occurred at a time when only thirteen out of more than one hundred employees had signed cards. Cf. NLRB v. Cameo, Inc., 340 F.2d 803, 810 (5th Cir.1965) (<HOLDING>); see also Brief for NLRB at 40 (relying on Options: A. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union B. holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventyfour employees C. holding that a union officials comments may be used to infer the object of union activity D. holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union E. holding that an employer could only distribute its proposal to union employees when the proposal was properly before the union

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventyfour employees
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Id. at *2. See also Stanford Hosp. & Clinics v. NLRB, 325 F.3d 334, 343 (D.C.Cir.2003) (noting that employees’ statutorily protected rights to solicitation extend to solicitation of nonemployees). The Board rejected Guardsmark’s contention that the last sentence is limited by the “[w]hile on duty” phrase appearing in the rule’s first sentence, explaining that even though the phrase “arguably limits [the rulej’s prohibition on lodging complaints with employees outside the chain of command to working time only[,] .... its prohibition on discussing terms of employment with customers is not similarly time-limited. It is absolute .... ” Guardsmark, 344 N.L.R.B. No. 97 at *2. Guardsmark argues that instead of reading the rule as a whole, as Martin Luther requires, 343 N.L.R.B. No. 75, at *1 (<HOLDING>), the Board “treated the phrase ‘while on duty’ Options: A. holding that a court should consider a defendants anticompetitive conduct as a whole rather than considering each aspect in isolation B. holding that procedural requirements of 3321b1 do not derogate the obligation of the board to seek out all issues which are reasonably raised from a liberal reading of the documents or oral testimony submitted prior to the board decision C. holding that plaintiff had standing to sue a board even though board was far from sole participant in the application of the challenged statute D. holding that the board must refrain from reading particular phrases in isolation E. holding that where the record suggests that the negative experiences of a petitioner and her family exist in isolation from each other a finding of persecution is not warranted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the board must refrain from reading particular phrases in isolation
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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 355 U.S. 62 78 S.Ct. 136 2 L.Ed.2d 93 Mildred S. STINSON, as Administratrix of the Estate of A. Bruce Stinson, Deceased, Suing as such Administratrix, Petitioner,v.ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY. No. 442. Decided Nov. 18, 1957. Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1958. See 355 U.S. 910, 78 S.Ct. 338. Mr. Joseph S. Lord, III, for petitioner. Messrs. Peyton D. Bibb and Norman C. Shepard, for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that 'there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that there was negligence on the part of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company.' 264 Ala. 522, 527, 88 So.2d 189, 193. We agree. We now hold that the evidence also presented a jury question whether the employee's death resulted in whole or in part from such negligence. 35 Stat. 65, 45 U.S.C. § 51, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51; Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493; Schulz v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 350 U.S. 523, 76 S.Ct. 608, 100 L.Ed. 668. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded for consideration of any grounds not disposed of on the first appeal; and, if none has merit, with instructions to reinstate the judgment entered on the jury verdict of June 12, 1953, awarding the petitioner damages of $46,600. Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 93 L.Ed. 1282. For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 524, 77 S.Ct. 443, 459, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, 520, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted. Mr. Justice Burton dissents. Mr. Justice Harlan, while believing that certiorari should be denied, considers that Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., supra, requires him to concur in the result.

assistant: 8
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: 6. The confidentiality agreement does not apply to statements of the company Helukabel in its catalogues, datasheets and on the homepage and also not to information which a) the receiving party was already aware of or which was developed by the disclosing party itself independent of the disclosure,

assistant: No
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: hazardous substances, and vehicles that carry passengers for hire. Therefore, it appears that UM coverage for passenger-carrying vehicles attaches to the vehicles, just as liability insurance for all three types of vehicles attaches to the vehicles. If so, UM coverage for passenger-carrying vehicles would protect anyone in the vehicle, including the driver. To the extent that this interpretation conflicts with A.R.S. section 20-259.01 (Supp. 1998), which makes uninsured coverage for insureds optional, and in light of longstanding public policy to protect victims from financially irresponsible drivers, we liberally construe section 28-4033(A)(2) to include drivers within the protected class of victims. See, e.g., Lowing v. Allstate Ins. Co., 176 Ariz. 101, 104, 859 P.2d 724, 727 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Employers Mut. Cos. Co. v. McKeon, 159 Ariz. Options: A. holding that the social security act is remedial and needs to be construed liberally B. holding that coas should be construed liberally C. recognizing that umuim statute is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed D. holding that umuim coverage is to be construed liberally to give full effect to the public policy which led to its enactment E. holding that under edenfield the act should be liberally construed

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that umuim statute is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed
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 Purchaser, severally and not jointly with the other Purchasers, covenants that neither it, nor any Affiliate acting on its behalf or pursuant to any understanding with it will execute any purchases or sales, including Short Sales, of any of the Company’s securities during the period commencing with the execution of this Agreement and ending at such time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.4. Each Purchaser, severally and not jointly with the other Purchasers, covenants that until such time as the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are publicly disclosed by the Company pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.4, such Purchaser will maintain the confidentiality of the existence and terms of this transaction and the information included in the Transaction Documents and the Disclosure Schedules. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, the Company expressly acknowledges and agrees that (i) no Purchaser makes any representation, warranty or covenant hereby that it will not engage in effecting transactions in any securities of the Company after the time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.4, (ii) no Purchaser shall be restricted or prohibited from effecting any transactions in any securities of the Company in accordance with applicable securities laws from and after the time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.4 and (iii) no Purchaser shall have any duty of confidentiality or duty not to trade in the securities of the Company to the Company after the issuance of the initial press release as described in Section 4.4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a Purchaser that is a multi-managed investment vehicle whereby separate portfolio managers manage separate portions of such Purchaser’s assets and the portfolio managers have no direct knowledge of the investment decisions made by the portfolio managers managing other portions of such Purchaser’s assets, the covenant set forth above shall only apply with respect to the portion of assets managed by the portfolio manager that made the investment decision to purchase the Securities covered by this Agreement.

assistant: Confidentiality
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 aliens entitled to protection but subject to mandatory denial of withholding. See Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 958-61 (9th Cir.2006). The IJ denied Aguilar’s application for deferral of removal under CAT, and the BIA affirmed. Because neither the BIA nor the IJ made an adverse credibility finding, “we must assume that [Aguilar’s] factual contentions are true.” Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 652 on El Salvador was included in the record without objection and that Aguilar attached it to his pro se brief to the BIA. Yet, neither the IJ nor the BIA considered the Country Report in denying Aguilar relief under CAT. The failure of the IJ and BIA to consider evidence of country conditions constitutes reversible error. See, e.g., Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1147-48 (9th Options: A. holding that bia did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider an unauthenticated document submitted with a motion to reopen to show changed country conditions B. holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by giving summary consideration to evidence presented in a motion to reopen particularly when dealing with evidence which the bia is asked to repeatedly consider C. holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it D. holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen E. holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions
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: v. New Jersey were tried and convicted based on confessions elicited without Miranda warnings, and the convictions became final before Miranda was decided. Id. at 725-26, 86 S.Ct. 1772. In unambiguous terms, the Court held that “Miranda applies only to cases in which the trial began after the date of our decision one week ago.” Id. at 721, 86 S.Ct. 1772. The rule did not apply “retroactively,” that is, to convictions which were already final, nor did it apply to cases tried before Miranda’s effective date. Id. at 731-32, 86 S.Ct. 1772. However, even for statements elicited pre-Miranda, the rule would henceforth apply “to persons whose trials had not begun as of June 13, 1966.” Id. at 734, 86 S.Ct. 1772; see also Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 738, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969) (<HOLDING>). Since Johnson v. New Jersey and Frazier, no Options: A. holding that a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment B. holding miranda decision does not apply retroactively C. holding that miranda was constitutionally based but declining to go further than miranda to establish a constitutional right D. holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision E. holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody

assistant: The best answer is D. holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision
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 term of each Award shall be for such period as may be determined by the Committee. Subject to the terms of the Plan and any applicable Award Terms, payments to be made by the Company or a Subsidiary or Affiliate upon the grant, maturation, or exercise of an Award may be made in such forms as the Committee shall determine at the date of grant or thereafter, including, without limitation, cash, Stock, or other property, and may be made in a single payment or transfer, in installments, or, subject to the requirements of Section 409A of the Code, on a deferred basis.

assistant: General
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 the Term and for a period of 2 years thereafter, Supplier shall, at its own expense, maintain and carry insurance in full force and effect which includes, but is not limited to, commercial general liability (including Product liability) in a sum no less than Five Million US Dollars ($5,000,000 UDS) with financially sound and reputable insurers. Upon Buyer’s request, Supplier shall provide Buyer with a certificate of insurance from Supplier’s insurer evidencing the insurance coverage specified in this Agreement. The certificate of insurance shall name Buyer as an additional insured. Supplier shall provide Buyer with thirty (30) days’ advance written notice in the event of a cancellation or material change in Supplier’s insurance policy. Except where prohibited by law, Supplier shall require its insurer to waive all rights of subrogation against Buyer’s insurers and Buyer or the Indemnitees.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: At Closing, the Company shall pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Purchasers (including fees of counsel to such Purchasers) incurred in connection with the transactions contemplated herein, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $75,000.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall become effective (other than Section 2.01, which shall only become effective upon satisfaction of the conditions precedent set forth in Section 3.01) when it shall have been executed by the Borrower and the Agent and when the Agent shall have been notified by each Initial Lender that such Initial Lender has executed it and thereafter shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Borrower, the Agent and each Lender and their respective successors and assigns, except that the Borrower shall not have the right to assign its rights hereunder or any interest herein without the prior written consent of each of the Lenders (and any other attempted assignment or transfer by any party hereto shall be null and void).

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you ( and also any third party for whom you operate an account or activity on the service ) agree to defend ( at instagram 's request ) , indemnify and hold the instagram parties harmless from and against any claims , liabilities , damages , losses , and expenses , including without limitation , reasonable attorney 's fees and costs , arising out of or in any way connected with any of the following ( including as a result of your direct activities on the service or those conducted on your behalf ) : ( i ) your content or your access to or use of the service ; ( ii ) your breach or alleged breach of these terms of use ; ( iii ) your violation of any third-party right , including without limitation , any intellectual property right , publicity , confidentiality , property or privacy right ; ( iv ) your violation of any laws , rules , regulations , codes , statutes , ordinances or orders of any governmental and quasi-governmental authorities , including , without limitation , all regulatory , administrative and legislative authorities ; or ( v ) any misrepresentation made by you .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: familiar with the new tool for managing BSA examinations. Id. Walker’s demonstrated technical expertise in BSA/ AML compliance examinations undermines the plaintiff’s contention that he was significantly more qualified than Walker with respect to the first QRF. 10 . The plaintiff argues that the Panel arbitrarily and inconsistently ranked the candidates. Pl.’s Opp’n at 32. The plaintiff’s argument, however, consists of taking small snippets of the selectees’ written application materials and interview responses out of context and offering his opinion of how these responses should have been rated. Id. at 32-33. This criticism does not help the plaintiff meet his burden of showing that he was significantly better qualified. See Brown v. Small, 2007 WL 158719, at *7 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2007) (<HOLDING>) (citing Hammond v. Chao, 383 F.Supp.2d 47, 57 Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs assessment of the candidates qualifications cannot demonstrate a pretext for discrimination B. holding that plaintiff was entitled to submit coworkers assessment of his work to show employers stated factual basis for adverse action was pretext for discrimination C. holding that even if plaintiff could demonstrate that failed drug test proffered by defendant as ground for dismissal was in error that showing would not demonstrate that reliance on test was pretext for discrimination D. holding that a plaintiff may rely on the same evidence to prove both pretext and discrimination E. holding that a reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for discrimination unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the plaintiffs assessment of the candidates qualifications cannot demonstrate a pretext for discrimination
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 a lineup or photospread, but forgets, or changes, his testimony at trial.” Id.; see, e.g., United States v. O’Malley, 796 F.2d 891, 898-99 (7th Cir.1986) (allowing FBI agent to testify regarding witness’s prior identification of defendant after witness recanted at trial). The better course, obviously, is to provide the photo array or other evidence of the prior identification immediately, while the declarant is still on the witness stand. But events at trial sometimes make the better course impractical. In such circumstances, a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine a declarant regarding his prior identification is enough to satisfy the requirements of Rule 801, even if the defendant chooses not to use the opportunity. See United States v. Elemy, 656 F.2d 507, 508 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The district court provided Foster such a Options: A. holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment B. holding that fbi agents testimony regarding witnesss pri or identification was admissible where nothing in the record suggested that the declarant was unavailable for reexamination after the agents testimony C. holding that agents testimony as to witnesss identification was not hearsay D. holding that an absent witnesss statements are admissible under the confrontation clause only where the declarant is unavailable and only where the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine E. holding that the victims prior videotaped testimony from a preliminary hearing was admissible as testimony at trial where the victim was unavailable to testify

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that fbi agents testimony regarding witnesss pri or identification was admissible where nothing in the record suggested that the declarant was unavailable for reexamination after the agents testimony
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 examination of her related complaints, and noting that Plaintiff had a ganglion cyst in her left wrist. (Tr. 428). There are no records diagnosing Plaintiff with carpal tunnel or restless leg syndrome, and Plaintiffs assertions of such impairments are insufficient to establish that they existed. See Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir.2009) (finding plaintiffs subjective complaints were insufficient to establish a disability where they were unsupported by objective medical evidence). Further, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Plaintiff followed up with a neurologist to receive evaluation or treatment for carpal tunnel or restless leg syndrome. See Stroud v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 13 Civ. 3251(AT)(JCF), 2014 WL 4652581, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2014) (<HOLDING>); see also Arnone v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 34, 39 (2d Options: A. holding the alj was permitted to consider fact claimant had not sought treatment for her alleged back pain B. holding that an alj may consider a claimants household activities in evaluating complaints of disabling pain C. holding that lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony but is a factor that an alj may consider D. holding that exaggeration of pain versus treatment sought was substantial evidence for the aljs credibility determination E. holding it is error for an alj to fail to consider factors relevant to the pain analysis which are supported by the record

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the alj was permitted to consider fact claimant had not sought treatment for her alleged back pain
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: Employee acknowledges and agrees that the covenant against competition and the covenant against disclosure contained in Paragraphs 15.A and 15.B, respectively, are reasonable and valid and do not impose limitations greater than those that are necessary to protect the business interests and confidential information of the Aflac Companies.

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: Except as permitted by an order of the Bankruptcy Court, none of the Borrower Parties, their respective Subsidiaries or any of their respective properties is in violation of, nor will the continued operation of their properties as currently conducted violate, any Legal Requirement (including any applicable Environmental Law) or is in default with respect to any judgment, writ, injunction, decree or order of any Governmental Authority in neither case that would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Compliance With Laws