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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Eighth Amendment may be executed in counterparts (and by different parties hereto on different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract. Delivery of an executed signature page to this Eighth Amendment by facsimile transmission or other electronic transmission (including .pdf) shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Eighth Amendment.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: review by the municipality’s authorized policymakers," Id. at 127 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). Rather, it refers to the plurality's earlier observation that "[ajssuming applicable law” does not make the mayor's decisions reviewable by municipality's civil service commission, "one would have to conclude that policy decisions made [] by the mayor ... would be attributable to the city itself.” Id. at 126 (plurality opinion). This is merely a common sense understanding of the word "final.” 25 . A different way of stating the same point is to the extent an official is not monitored for compliance with "merit and fitness” policies, the official is not actually "constrained” by such polices for purposes of Praprotnik. See Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441, 448-49 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 26 . If Options: A. holding that director of the police department is not a final policymaking official because his decisions are constrained by the county manager the board and administrative order and polices B. holding that determination as to whether an official has been delegated final policymaking authority is a question of law for the court not one of fact for the juiy C. holding that in determining final policymaking authority the pertinent issue is not whether the official is hypothetically constrained by policies not of that officials making but whether such constraints are actually meaningful and citing melton to note that a city charters merit and fitness policy did not preclude an officials final policymaking authority D. holding that under praprotnik a town charters directive that city managers personnel decisions be based on merit and fitness did not preclude city managers final policymaking authority where no other town officials were empowered to enforce that provision E. holding that under praprotnik city manager had final policymaking authority regarding personnel decision despite city charters command that all personnel decisions be made according to merit and fitness

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that in determining final policymaking authority the pertinent issue is not whether the official is hypothetically constrained by policies not of that officials making but whether such constraints are actually meaningful and citing melton to note that a city charters merit and fitness policy did not preclude an officials final policymaking 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: below and develop a factual record in support of his argument. Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009, ¶ 50, 149 N.M. 435, 250 P.3d 861 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant did both, and we therefore turn to an analysis of Defendant’s state constitutional argument. {23} Under our State Constitution, Officer Thatcher could ask questions about narcotics and weapons only if he had developed independent, reasonable suspicion giving rise to such questions. See Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 24, 144 N.M. 37, 183 P.3d 922. The only basis for suspicion of criminal activity that the State articulated in the district court involved Defendant’s demeanor when Officer Thatcher approached the vehicle and requested the driver’s documentation. Officer Thatcher testified that Defen 2, 131 P.3d 1286 (<HOLDING>). {24} To summarize, Defendant was detained at Options: A. holding that suspicion must be individualized B. holding that nervous evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion C. holding that a nervous and possibly furtive demeanor was insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion to detain D. holding nervous behavior and inconsistent story justified reasonable suspicion and subsequent search E. holding that nervous behavior and failure to make eye contact did not give rise to reasonable individualized suspicion

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that nervous behavior and failure to make eye contact did not give rise to reasonable individualized suspicion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for the first violation for selling fireworks with an excessive powder content. However, § 320.136 states that M-80s are expressly prohibited from possession within the state for any purpose. The Commission found that Shelton possessed M-80s. Section 320.116 grants the state fire marshal the discretion to revoke the permits of any license holder who has violated the provisions of §§ Sections 320.106 to 320.161 for a period of three years. Further, possession of illegal fireworks under § 320.136, which includes M-80s, may “result in the ... revocation of the license(s) of the licensee.” 11 C.S.R. 40-3.010(21). It is clearly within the discretion of the fire marshal to determine the appropriate penalty for a licensed fireworks’ dealer who possesses M-80s. Walker, 781 S.W.2d at 116 (<HOLDING>). Shelton possessed over 1,000 M-80s in his Options: A. holding the boards affirmance of the penalty of removal was within the discretionary authority of the board because the record reflects a reasoned concern for the factors appropriate to evaluating a penalty B. holding that the authority to determine the appropriate penalty is with the supervisor of liquor control and not the administrative hearing commission or the reviewing court C. holding that in reviewing a gaming commission decision the court will examine the record to determine if there is any evidence to support the commissions order D. holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence E. holding that the district court is limited to considering the administrative record in reviewing the denial of benefits under an erisa plan

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the authority to determine the appropriate penalty is with the supervisor of liquor control and not the administrative hearing commission or the reviewing court
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: With respect to the Loan Parties and all ERISA Affiliates, establish, maintain and operate all Plans to comply in all material respects with the provisions of ERISA, the Code and all applicable laws, the regulations and interpretation thereunder and the respective requirements of the governing documents for such Plans.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: grounds”); People v. Ruiz, No. H026609, 2005 WL 1670426, at *3 (Cal.Ct. App. July 19, 2005) (unpublished) (“[C]ounsel expressly argued that the admission of the wife’s hearsay statements violated the confrontation clause in the sense that they were not trustworthy____ Under the circumstances, this was more than adequate to preserve defendant’s Crawford contention.”). Given the trial court’s statement and Defendant’s assertions in his motion, we hold that Defendant “fairly invoked a ruling [by] the trial court” that admission of the victim’s statements would violate his confrontation rights. Accordingly, we hold that Defendant’s general Confrontation Clause arguments were sufficient to preserve his Crawford claims. See also State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 11, 128 N.M. 410, 993 P.2d 727 (<HOLDING>). {16} The State next argues that Defendant Options: A. holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made B. holding that objection on the grounds of inability to cross examine or confront the witness was adequate to raise confrontation clause claims even though the defendant did not mention the sixth amendment C. holding that error is preserved regarding a defendants right to confront a witness if the defendant identifies for the trial court the subject matter about which he or she desired to examine the witness and the subject had a tendency to affect the witness credibility D. holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment E. 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

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that objection on the grounds of inability to cross examine or confront the witness was adequate to raise confrontation clause claims even though the defendant did not mention the sixth amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Guarantor irrevocably waives all presentments, demands for performance, protests, notices of protest, notices of dishonor, notice of acceleration to Borrower, any other Person or any other party with respect to the Loan or the Guaranteed Obligations, notices of acceptance of this Guaranty and of the existence, creation or incurring of new or additional Obligations, notices of defaults by Borrower or any other Person liable for all or any portion of the Guaranteed Obligations and demands and notices of every kind that may be required to be given by any statute or rule or law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: segregation from the general prison population."). 36 . Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293 ("States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause."). 37 . Id. at 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293; accord Larson, 90 P.3d at 135. 38 . State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policies and Procedures (P & P) Definition 818.14(B). 39 . P & P Purpose 818.14. 40 . P & P Procedure 818.14(8A)(4). 41 . P & P Procedure 818.14(G). We also note that A 3, 306-09 (Alaska 2007) (deeming color-able an inmate's claim that he was entitled to due process before he could be placed in punitive segregation for 30 days because of his state-constitutional interest in rehabilitation}. 43 . See, e.g., Dominique v. Weld, 73 F.3d 1156, 1159-61 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 44 . Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 486, 115 S.Ct. Options: A. holding removal of convicted prisoner from community work release program did not implicate a statecreated liberty interest because his transfer to a more secure facility subjected him to conditions no different from those ordinarily experienced by large numbers of other inmates serving their sentences in customary fashion B. holding that an inmate had no liberty interest in avoiding transfer to a more restrictive facility C. holding that prisoner had no liberty interest in remaining in voluntary boot camp program despite fact that completion of program qualifies inmate for early release D. holding that 117 days in administrative segregation due to lack of bed space did not implicate a statecreated liberty interest E. holding that 12 days of prehearing confinement in the shu did not implicate a statecreated liberty interest

assistant: The best answer is A. holding removal of convicted prisoner from community work release program did not implicate a statecreated liberty interest because his transfer to a more secure facility subjected him to conditions no different from those ordinarily experienced by large numbers of other inmates serving their sentences in customary fashion
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: All payments made by Jazz to ImmunoGen hereunder shall be made without set-off or counterclaim and free and clear of any taxes, duties, levies, fees or charges, except for withholding taxes, if any. Jazz shall make any applicable withholding payments due on behalf of ImmunoGen and shall provide ImmunoGen with reasonable proof of payment of such withholding taxes, together with an accounting of the calculations of such taxes, within [***] days after such payment is remitted to the proper authority. Any withheld tax remitted by Jazz to the proper authority shall be treated as having been paid by Jazz to ImmunoGen for all purposes of this Agreement. The Parties shall cooperate reasonably in completing and filing documents required under the provisions of any Applicable Laws in connection with the making of any required withholding tax payment, or in connection with any claim to a refund of or credit for any such payment.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive acknowledges that any breach of any of Executive’s representations and promises set forth in the Agreement shall cause the Company irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Executive therefore consents to the issuance by any court of competent jurisdiction of any injunction in favor of Company enjoining the breach of any of the promises. If any provision of the Agreement should be held to be unenforceable because of its scope or duration, or the area or subject matter covered thereby, Executive agrees that the court making such determination shall have the power to reduce or modify the scope, duration, subject matter or area of that promise to the extent that allows the maximum scope, duration, subject matter or area permitted by applicable law. Executive further agrees that the remedies provided for herein are in addition to, and are not to be construed as replacements for, or a limitation of, rights and remedies otherwise available to the Company. If any portion of the Release set forth in Section 4 cannot be enforced, the remaining provisions of the Agreement are voidable at the Company’s sole option and Executive shall repay all sums that he received in return for the release of claims other than one month of Severance Pay, which is given in exchange for the release of claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended. If any provision of the Agreement, other than the Release, cannot be enforced, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

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: commerce. They point to § 306(b) which states, “The following acts unreasonably burden and discriminate against interstate commerce____”49 U.S.C. § 11501(b). Plaintiff, however, argues that although Congress did not cite § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment as authority for enacting § 306, such a recital is not necessary if Congress had the power to act under § 5. Plaintiff contends that the type of discriminatory taxation that § 306 was designed to prohibit implicates the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, according to plaintiff, Congress had the power to enact the 4-R Act under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff is correct that discriminatory taxes can raise equal protection concerns. See Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal v. Webster County, 488 U.S. 336, 109 S.Ct. 633, 102 L.Ed.2d 688 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff is also correct when it asserts Options: A. recognizing that the equal protection clause proscribes discrimination against whiteanglos B. holding that in light of engquist the equal protection clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the clause based on a class of one theory of liability C. holding that west virginia property tax discriminated against coal companies in violation of equal protection clause D. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection E. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that west virginia property tax discriminated against coal companies in violation of equal protection clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: establish expectations of privacy and that an individual’s expectations in respect of privacy must be objectively reasonable. State v. Hempele, 120 N.J. 182, 200, 576 A.2d 793 (1990). It follows that an individual’s privacy interest in the home is accorded the most deference in state and federal constitutional law. State v. Johnson, 168 N.J. 608, 625, 775 A.2d 1273 (2001) (citing Kornegay v. Cottingham, 120 F.3d 392, 399-400 (3d Cir.1997)). Other settings also enjoy recognized expectations of privacy, although they do not receive the same deference as that accorded to one’s home. United States v. Thomas, 729 F.2d 120, 123-24 (2d Cir.1984) (stating that citizen’s expectation of privacy is less in office than in residence); United States v. Mankani, 738 F.2d 538, 542-45 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). One such setting is an inpatient hospital Options: A. holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity B. holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed tp mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity C. recognizing that defendant had diminished expectationof privacy in motel room D. holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will E. holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room for evidence of drug activity even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that defendant had diminished expectationof privacy in motel room
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 420. The standard articulated in S.L.J. actually incorporates two distinct lines of United States Supreme Court case law. The S.L.J. opinion defines “fighting words” in terms of whether a mere utterance would “tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Id. at 418 (quoting Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130,132, 94 S.Ct. 970, 972, 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974)). Other Supreme Court decisions, however, state that for an utterance to be considered fighting words, it must be an insult personally directed at an individual. See, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309-10, 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940) (overturning fighting words conviction for lack of “personal abuse”); see also Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 524, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 1107, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972) (<HOLDING>). The separate issue of “intentionally Options: A. holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence B. holding that fighting words must have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom individually the remark is addressed C. holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence D. holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action E. holding with no analysis that any person or organization who may be legally liable therefor applies to a person legally liable for injuries caused by an accident 4 when under the facts of the case the only person to whom the clause could have applied was a tortfeasor

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that fighting words must have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom individually the remark is addressed
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 represents and warrants to the Lenders that after giving effect to this Amendment (a) the representations and warranties set forth in Article VI of the Credit Agreement are true and correct in all material respects (or, if such representation or warranty is qualified by materiality or Material Adverse Effect, it shall be true and correct in all respects as drafted) as of the date hereof, except to the extent that such representations and warranties specifically refer to an earlier date, in which case they shall be true and correct in all material respects (or, if such representation or warranty is qualified by materiality or Material Adverse Effect, it shall be true and correct in all respects as drafted) as of such earlier date, and (b) no Default exists.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: doctrine to an FDCPA claim. At least one court of appeals has stated in dicta that a defendant’s collection activities might amount to a continuing violation of the FDCPA. See Solomon v. HSBC Mortg. Corp., 395 Fed.Appx. 494, 497 n. 3 (10th Cir.2010). But that case included FDCPA claims related to an allegedly baseless foreclosure action, and the court concluded that the deceptive acts alleged in the complaint, including the foreclosure action, were discrete acts rather than continuing violations. Id. at 497. No court of appeals has held that debt-collection litigation (or a misleading statement made in connection with that litigation) is a continuing violation of the FDCPA. See Schaffhauser v. Citibank (S.D.) N.A., 340 Fed.Appx. 128, 131 (3d Cir.2009) (per cu- riam) (<HOLDING>); Naas v. Stolman, 130 F.3d 892, 893 (9th Options: A. holding that discriminatory pay reduction under fair labor standards act does not constitute continuing violation B. holding that failure to appear for sentencing is a continuing offense because a convicted criminal has a continuing obligation to face sentencing and presents an ongoing threat to the integrity and authority of the court so long as he has not appeared C. holding that title vii does not include a continuing violation doctrine D. holding that ongoing debtcollection litigation does not constitute a continuing violation of the fdcpa E. holding that because a 1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense venue may lie in any district in which the continuing conduct occurred

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that ongoing debtcollection litigation does not constitute a continuing violation of the fdcpa
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: been intimately involved with the crime lab and its oversight from its inception. Although he was not statutorily authorized to serve as Wilkinson’s supervisor, Luzzi acted in that capacity pursuant to URI’s joint — albeit unauthorized — de facto control over crime-lab employees. And Hilliard was the director of the lab, and thus was Wilkinson’s supervisor when he allegedly uttered his defamatory statements. Thus, even if their statements might have been defamatory in some other context, both Luzzi and Hilliard were entitled to the legal protection afforded to them as Wilkinson’s de facto supervisors by the qualified privilege accorded to those who comment upon the job performance of individuals they supervise. See Swanson v. Speidel Corp., 110 R.I. 385, 338, 293 A.2d 307, 309 (1972) (<HOLDING>). The allegedly defamatory statements related Options: A. holding that defendant could not be liable for distributing defamatory statements unless it knew or had reason to know of statements B. holding that statements in personnel files that would otherwise be defamatory are privileged C. holding that prosecutors defamatory statements to the press after plaintiff was pardoned were absolutely privileged D. holding that statements imputing adultery are defamatory under louisiana law E. holding plaintiffs must plead alleged defamatory statements with precision

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that statements in personnel files that would otherwise be defamatory are privileged
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 Borrower shall immediately notify the Borrower Representative of the occurrence of any Default or Unmatured Default hereunder referring to this Agreement describing such Default or Unmatured Default and stating that such notice is a "notice of default". In the event that the Borrower Representative receives such a notice, the Borrower Representative shall give prompt notice thereof to the Administrative Agent and the Lenders. Any notice provided to the Borrower Representative hereunder shall constitute notice to each Borrower on the date received by the Borrower Representative.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Collectively, Drs. Dionee and Zacharia’s conclusions, the “functional capacity evaluation,” and Hartford’s “employability analysis report” supported the decision that Maninger was no longer totally disabled. This evidence provided a reasonable basis for Hartford’s decision. AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 . See Nord v. Black & Decker Disability Plan, 356 F.3d 1008, 1009-10 (9th Cir.2004) (citing standard of review); Alford v. DCH Group Long-Term Disability Plan, 311 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir.2002). 2 . See Nord, 356 F.3d at 1009-10. 3 . Id. at 1010. 4 . Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Jordan v. Northrop Grumman Corp. Welfare Options: A. holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions although administrators may not arbitrarily refuse to credit them B. holding that courts have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a claimants physician C. holding that the decision of whether to accord greater weight to contemporaneous medical records or later given testimony is uniquely within the purview of the special master D. holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions E. holding that reviewing court should accord deference to special masters decision and may not substitute its own judgment for that of the special master

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that courts have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a claimants physician
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: it, for example, by informing the jury that as a matter of law, he was not responsible for CWs death. See, e.g., Lucas v. United States, 102 A.3d 270, 279 (D.C.2014) (“ ‘[I]m-proper prosecutorial comments are looked upon with special disfavor when they appear in the rebuttal because at that point defense counsel has no opportunity to contest or ciar ify what the prosecutor has said.’ ” (quoting Anthony v. United States, 935 A.2d 275, 284 (D.C.2007))). The lack of a limiting instruction also compounded the effect of the prosecutor’s comment. Specifically, the court failed to instruct the jurors that CW’s death should not be considered as evidence of Nofoa’s guilt in the terroristic threatening and kidnapping ease. Cf. State v. Murray, 116 Hawai'i 3, 19, 169 P.3d 955, 971 (2007) (<HOLDING>); State v. Cordeiro, 99 Hawai'i 390, 416, 56 Options: A. holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error B. holding that a trial court errs when it fails to give a limiting instruction properly requested by a party C. holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error D. holding the potential for undue prejudice is so great that failure to give a limiting instruction with regard to prior convictions results in error even if the defendant has not requested one citing evans v cowan 506 f2d 1248 1249 6th cir1974 E. recognizing that a limiting instruction has the potential to cure any prejudice from the erroneous admission of evidence

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the potential for undue prejudice is so great that failure to give a limiting instruction with regard to prior convictions results in error even if the defendant has not requested one citing evans v cowan 506 f2d 1248 1249 6th cir1974
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: U.S.C. § 3284 (“The concealment of assets of a debtor” in a Chapter 11 case “shall be deemed to be a continuing offense” until the date of final bankruptcy discharge). Nor does the nature of the crime involved indicate that Congress intended that it be a continuing offense. Section 1001 was intended “to protect the Government from the affirmative, aggressive and voluntary actions of persons who take the initiative; and to protect the Government from being the victim of some positive statement which has the tendency and effect of perverting normal and proper governmental activities and functions.” Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398, 413, 118 S.Ct. 805, 139 L.Ed.2d 830 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Niven, 952 F.2d 289, 293 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Consistent with this purpose, § 1001 makes it Options: A. holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction B. holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue C. holding that kidnapping is a continuing offense because the crime by its nature involves unlawful seizure and detention and the perpetration of the offense and harm to the victim continues throughout the duration of the detention D. holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense E. holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue
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 Plan shall become effective upon its adoption by the Board. Options and Stock Awards may be granted immediately thereafter; provided, that no Option may be exercised and no Stock Award may be granted under the Plan until it is approved by the stockholders of the Company, in the manner and to the extent required by Applicable Law, within 12 months after the date of adoption by the Board. The Plan shall continue in effect for a term of ten years from the date of the Plan’s adoption by the Board unless terminated earlier under Section 16 herein.

assistant: Effective Dates
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 will not , in your use of the services , cause nuisance , annoyance , inconvenience , or property damage , whether to the third party provider or any other party .

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: (V) The Borrower will, and will cause each of its Subsidiaries to, take all actions necessary to maintain and pursue each application, to obtain the relevant registration and to maintain the registration of each of its Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights (now or hereafter existing), including the filing of applications for renewal, affidavits of use, affidavits of noncontestability and opposition and interference and cancellation proceedings, unless the Borrower shall determine that such Patent, Trademark or Copyright is not material to the conduct of its business or operations or such failures to take such actions could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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 Options and the provisions of this Agreement are governed by, and subject to, the laws of the State of Washington, as provided in the Plan, without regard for its conflict of laws provisions. For purposes of litigating any dispute that arises under this grant or this Agreement, the parties hereby submit to and consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of Washington, agree that such litigation shall be conducted exclusively in the courts of King County, or the federal courts of the United States for the 9 th Circuit, and no other courts, where this grant is made and/or to be performed.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: consular nonreviewability predates the founding of our Republic. See Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1158-59 (D.C.Cir.1999) (noting that the doctrine “is in accordance with ... ancient principles of international law ... dating from Roman times”). We have consistently held that this doctrine prevents us from reviewing decisions reached by consular officials regarding the entry of visa applicants. See, e.g., Li Hing of Hong Kong v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970, 970 (9th Cir.1986) (“The doctrine of nonreviewability of a consul’s decision to grant or deny a visa stems from the Supreme Court’s confirming that the legislative power of Congress over the admission of aliens is virtually complete.”); Ventura-Escamilla v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 647 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). This aligns the Ninth Circuit with courts Options: A. recognizing that court would lack jurisdiction to review denial of visa application by consul in palermo italy B. holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter C. holding that we review for abuse of discretion a decision to exclude a document for lack of authentication D. holding that when the attorney general decides that the aliens offense was a particularly serious crime we lack jurisdiction to review such a decision because it is discretionary E. holding that we lack jurisdiction when the relief sought is a review of the consuls decision denying them application for a visa

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that we lack jurisdiction when the relief sought is a review of the consuls decision denying them application for a visa
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: Serv. Comm’n, 120 S.W.3d 732, 734 (Mo. banc 2003). If the order is lawful, we must then determine whether it is reasonable. Sprint Spectrum, 112 S.W.3d at 24. Reasonableness depends on whether the order is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record; whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or whether the Commission abused its discretion. Id. “The decision of the Commission on factual issues is presumed to be correct until the contrary is shown and we are obliged to sustain the Commission’s order if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.” State ex rel. Atmos Energy Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 103 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Mo. banc 2003). See Lagud v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 136 S.W.3d 786, 791 (Mo. banc 2004) (<HOLDING>). “Effective Competition” Appellants Office of Options: A. holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record B. holding that although the board set forth the appropriate standard of review at the outset of its decision in this case whether the bia properly applied that standard was a question of law C. holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts D. holding that the standard of review set forth in hampton v big boy steel erection 121 sw3d 220 mo banc 2003 a workers compensation review is applicable to other administrative proceedings as well E. holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the standard of review set forth in hampton v big boy steel erection 121 sw3d 220 mo banc 2003 a workers compensation review is applicable to other administrative proceedings as well
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 cumu-late. Appellant also appears to argue that the statutes allowing the trial court to cumulate the sentences in this way violate the Apprendi-Blakely-Ring line of cases recently handed down by the United States Supreme Court by increasing the maximum punishment for the offenses without a jury finding. Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Appellant does not argue that the stacking order violated a statutory provision. See Tex.Code CRim. PROC. Ann. art. 42.08 (Vernon Supp.2004-05); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 3.03 (Vernon 2003); see also LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412, 415 (Tex. Crim.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Both the Austin and Waco courts of appeals Options: A. holding that cumulation order not authorized by statute is in essence a void sentence and any error cannot be waived B. holding standing cannot be waived and may thus be raised at any time C. holding the contract was not authorized by law D. holding temporary restraining order void because court waived bond E. holding that a defendant cannot be punished by contempt proceedings for disregarding a void order

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that cumulation order not authorized by statute is in essence a void sentence and any error cannot be waived
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for the security interest in the Collateral granted to the Noteholder Collateral Agent for the benefit of the Secured Parties pursuant to this Agreement and Permitted Liens, such Pledgor owns the Collateral (or either owns or has a license to, in the case of Intellectual Property Collateral) and, as to Collateral acquired by it from time to time after the date hereof, will own (or either own or have a License to, in the case of Intellectual Property Collateral) the rights in each item of Collateral pledged by it hereunder free and clear of any and all Liens or claims of others (other than Permitted Liens). Such Pledgor has not filed, nor authorized any third party to file a financing statement or other public notice with respect to all or any part of the Collateral on file or of record in any public office, except such as have been filed in favor of the Noteholder Collateral Agent pursuant to this Agreement, filed in favor of the holder of a Permitted Lien, permitted by the Indenture or financing statements or public notices relating to the termination statements listed on Schedule 9(a) to the Perfection Certificate. No Person other than the Noteholder Collateral Agent and, to the extent required under the Intercreditor Agreement, prior to the ABL Obligations Payment Date (as defined in the Intercreditor Agreement) the ABL Agent, prior to the Term Obligations Payment Date (as defined in the Intercreditor Agreement) the Term Agent, and prior to the Existing Indenture Obligations Payment Date (as defined in the Intercreditor Agreement) the Existing Noteholder Collateral Agent, has, or will have, control or possession of all or any part of the Collateral, except to the extent not prohibited by the Notes Documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If Participant’s employment ends as a result of Disability (as such term is defined in the Employment Agreement) while employed prior to the Vesting Date, then all unvested Shares subject to the Award shall become vested and nonforfeitable at the Target Award payout level (100%) as of the date of Disability, and payout of the Shares shall be made as provided in Section 8.

assistant: Disability
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 trial court permitted details of a settlement agreement with a codefendant to become a feature of the trial). Because no foundation was laid establishing a substantial similarity between Hall’s accident and other accidents referenced by plaintiff throughout the trial, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence and the verdict must be set aside and the matter remanded for a new trial involving both liability and compensatory damages. Reversed and remanded. 1 . The jury also awarded $1.2 million for lost support and services, but the trial court vacated this award. 2 . Nevertheless, under the facts of this case, the admission of post-accident remedial measures was also improper and constitutes reversible error. . Bachanov, 436 So.2d 236, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (<HOLDING>); Ry. Express Agency v. Fulmer, 227 So.2d 870, Options: A. holding that model rule 53 requires courts to apply the same ethical standards to nonlawyer employees B. holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment C. holding two instances of violating 148 were two offenses because thirty minutes elapsed between the two incidents and in the intervening space of time the defendant had completely calmed down and ceased his criminal activity D. holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial E. holding that two prior complaints and the testimony from two witnesses who were injured by the same model meat grinder were admissible to rebut the notion that defendant had no notice of a defective condition of the grinder model at issue

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that two prior complaints and the testimony from two witnesses who were injured by the same model meat grinder were admissible to rebut the notion that defendant had no notice of a defective condition of the grinder model at issue