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: Each of the Parent and its Subsidiaries has filed all United States Federal income Tax returns and all other material Tax returns which are required to be filed by it and has paid all Taxes due pursuant to such returns or pursuant to any assessment received by it, except to the extent the same may be contested as permitted by Section 9.02 hereof. The charges, accruals and reserves on the books of such Persons in respect of Taxes and other governmental charges are, in the opinion of the Parent, adequate.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Nor is this a situation where HTC proposes a new claim construction on appeal or where we must adopt a new construction of the method claims in order to rule in the appellant’s favor. There is no dispute here that HTC consistently argued below and on appeal that the method claims do not require a separate diverting entity. See, e.g., J.A. 571 (“The language of claim 1 does not preclude the same structure from performing the diverting step and the controlling step.”); Appellant Br. 23 (“The text of Claim 1 does not expressly or implicitly require separate structures to perform the ‘diverting’ and ‘controlling’ steps.”). Thus, this is not a situation where HTC simply waived its claim invalidity argument with respect to the method claims. Contrary to the m 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>); Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, Options: A. holding that it was reasonable that counsel would not anticipate that the prosecution would attempt to offer inadmissible polygraph evidence B. holding that a priorart reference did not anticipate claims 1 4 and 712 but that it did anticipate claim 20 C. holding that a reasonable officer could not have been expected to anticipate that ten to fifteen minutes of unauthorized detention would amount to a greater than de minimis injury D. holding that failure to predict future law or to anticipate arguments that blossomed after trial is not a basis for ineffective assistance of counsel claims E. holding that defendants failure to anticipate future events did not constitute securities fraud

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a priorart reference did not anticipate claims 1 4 and 712 but that it did anticipate claim 20
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 cocaine Det. Mitchell seized from the living room, even if it was in plain view, must be suppressed. See Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 812, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984). C. Attenuation of the Taint Where, as here, a search following an illegal entry is premised upon the consent of the defendant, the question becomes whether the tangible and testimonial evidence subsequently obtained is justified on the basis of that consent or is indelibly tainted by the initial illegal entry. An inquiring court must determine whether consent “has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Robeles-Ortega, 348 F.3d Options: A. holding evidence obtained following unlawful police conduct nevertheless admissible because evidence not obtained by virtue of that unlawful conduct B. recognizing that evidence obtained from a search that is conducted pursuant to a warrant based partially on tainted information gathered during a prior illegal search is also tainted and must be suppressed internal quotation marks and citation omitted C. holding that a confession obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest is not admissible D. holding that statements obtained following an illegal arrest are no less tainted than is physical evidence obtained after the same E. holding that the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is subject to a harmlesserror analysis

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that statements obtained following an illegal arrest are no less tainted than is physical evidence obtained after the same
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: 1780, and his claim of actual innocence is not cognizable in habeas proceedings not filed under the Act. Gardner, 2014 Ark. 346, at 4, 439 S.W.3d at 666. Pennington’s chai- lenge to the validity of his guilty plea is likewise not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Parker v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 309, at 3 (per curiam). Pennington’s allegations with respect to his original sentencing order, including the claim based on Miller, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, are moot. As stated above, Pennington’s original judgment and sentence were declared illegal and set aside by this court. Pennington, 2014 Ark. 441, at 2, 497 S.W.3d at 187. A habeas proceeding cannot'be'-maintained with respect to a sentence that is no longer in effect, Bradford v. State, 2011 Ark. 494, at 5, 2011 WL 5588934 (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). With respect to Pennington’s allegations Options: A. holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error B. holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error C. holding that appellant cannot revive claim he abandoned before the district court D. holding that the appellant cannot demonstrate that he is being illegally detained when the sentences have expired E. holding that because the individual was being illegally detained when he consented to the search of his luggage that consent was tainted by the illegality

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the appellant cannot demonstrate that he is being illegally detained when the sentences have expired
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: inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Barnes v. Wright, 449 F.3d 709, 717 (6th Cir.2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The First Amendment permits “restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are ‘of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.’ ” Thus, for example ... fighting words — “those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction” — are generally pro-scribable under the First Amendment. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358-59, 123 S.Ct. 1536, 155 L.Ed.2d 535 (2003) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). D Section 750.337 of Michigan Compiled Laws, Options: A. recognizing first amendment retaliation right B. holding that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the presence of a cross in a city park even though the cross was neither erected nor financially maintained by the government C. holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech D. holding that the burning of an american flag is conduct sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to implicate the first amendment E. holding that the first amendment permits virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation and speech or symbolic acts to intimidate lack first amendment protection

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the first amendment permits virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation and speech or symbolic acts to intimidate lack first amendment protection
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: error. In Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001), the Supreme Court held that the determination whether two crimes are functionally “ ‘consolidated for sentencing,’ and hence ‘related,’ ” id. at 61, 121 S.Ct. 1276, should be reviewed deferentially because the determination is “bounded by[ ] case-specific detailed factual circumstances,” id. at 65, 121 S.Ct. 1276. We have similarly held that “[w]e review a district court’s finding as to whether prior convictions are factually related for clear error.” United States v. Mapp, 170 F.3d 328, 338 & n. 15 (2d Cir.1999); see United States v. Patasnik, 89 F.3d 63, 74 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133, 1143 (2d Cir.1995). But see United States v. Keller, 58 F.3d 884, 894 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lopez, 961 F.2d 384, 386 (2d Options: A. holding that whether a statute has been properly construed is a question of law subject to de novo review B. holding prior to having been superseded by mapp that the determination of factual relatedness is subject to de novo review C. holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review D. recognizing de novo standard of review E. recognizing that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review

assistant: The best answer is B. holding prior to having been superseded by mapp that the determination of factual relatedness is subject to de novo review
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: Borrower acknowledges and agrees that irreparable damage would occur to Lender in the event that Borrower fails to perform any provision of this Note or any of the other Transaction Documents in accordance with its specific terms. It is accordingly agreed that Lender shall be entitled to an injunction or injunctions to prevent or cure breaches of the provisions of this Note or such other Transaction Document and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions hereof or thereof, this being in addition to any other remedy to which Lender may be entitled under the Transaction Documents, at law or in equity. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event Lender seeks to obtain an injunction against Borrower for specific performance of any provision of any Transaction Document, such action shall not be a waiver of any right of Lender under any Transaction Document, at law, or in equity, including without limitation its rights to arbitrate any Claim pursuant to the terms of the Transaction Documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: You agree that (i) you shall not communicate with anyone (other than your own attorneys), except in connection with the good-faith performance of your duties for SC or as required by law, with respect to the subject matter of any pending or potential investigation, litigation, or regulatory or administrative proceeding involving SC or any of its affiliated companies, other than any investigation, litigation or other proceeding in which you are an interested party, without giving prior notice to SC or SC’s General Counsel; and (ii) in the event that any other party attempts to obtain information or documents from you with respect to matters possibly related to such litigation or other proceeding, you shall promptly notify SC’s General Counsel before providing such information or documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may report any violation of federal law or regulation to any department or agency of the federal government or otherwise make any disclosure protected by any federal whistleblower law or statute, and you may make statements and disclosures authorized under Paragraph B of this Exhibit B.

assistant: Litigations
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: instead suggest that the debtor faces the high stakes of litigation and therefore should cooperate. Accordingly, after reconsideration, this Court affirms its prior Ruling granting summary judgment for Plaintiff on his claim under § 1692e(5). B. The Remaining FDCPA Claims Under §§ 1692e(2)(A) and (10) Having affirmed its prior Ruling on Plaintiffs § 1692e(5) claim, this Court also affirms its prior Ruling granting summary judgment for Plaintiff on his claims arising under §§ 1692e(2)(A) and (10). Courts have long held that after finding a valid claim under a more specific subsection of § 1692e, such as § 1692e(5), further analysis under § 1692e(10) is “somewhat dupli-cative.” Kapeluschnik, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22883, at *26; see Clomon, 988 F.2d at 1321; Pipiles, 886 F.2d at 25-26 (<HOLDING>). See generally Gaetano v. Payco of Wis., Inc., Options: A. recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket B. holding statute requiring parties in tax suit to take notice of subsequent pleadings was not unconstitutional when city failed to take such notice C. holding that the the vagueness of the language in a notice suggested defendant would take actions it did not intend to take and therefore violated both 1692e5 and 10 D. recognizing that the government agreed not to take a position E. holding that where it was erroneous for the district court to take judicial notice it certainly cannot be said that such notice was mandatory and therefore ire 201d is inapplicable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the the vagueness of the language in a notice suggested defendant would take actions it did not intend to take and therefore violated both 1692e5 and 10
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 terminate upon death of the Executive; provided, however, that in such event the Employer shall pay to the estate of the Executive the compensation, including Base Salary and accrued but unused paid-time off in accordance with Employer’s policies with respect thereto, which otherwise would be payable to the Executive through the date on which her death occurs. Such amounts shall be paid at the end of the payroll period that follows the payroll period in which her employment terminates due to her death. Additionally, the Employer shall pay to the Executive’s estate any vested benefits under this Agreement or under any plan or program of the Employer (paid at the times provided thereunder) and any bonus or other short-term incentive compensation earned, but not yet paid, for any year prior to the year in which her death occurs.

assistant: Death
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: contrary to the public interest. A preliminary injunction in the instant case would not be contrary to the public interest because the courts should strive to enforce contractual agreements. To begin, the Supreme Court in Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 225-26, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 2336-37, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987) noted that the Arbitration Act established a federal policy supporting arbitration which obligates the courts to enforce arbitration agreements rigorously. Recognizing this important policy, this Court stated in Luckie v. Smith Barney, 766 F.Supp. 1116, 1120 (M.D.Fla.1991) that parties should not be allowed to circumvent the terms of arbitration agreements by utilizing the AMEX Window. See also Merrill Lynch v. Georgiadis, 903 F.2d 109, 112 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, as stated before, customer Options: A. holding that the arbitration provision naming particular arbitration fora superseded the amex constitution closed the amex window and precluded arbitration before aaa who was not named in the arbitration provision B. holding that should is a preferential rather than mandatory word and that contract provision stating that parties should settle disputes in a particular forum was not a mandatory selection clause C. holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement D. holding that under ordinary contract principles the parties should be bound by an arbitration provision requiring that disputes be arbitrated only before particular fora E. holding that where a contract containing an arbitration clause is challenged as unconscionable those disputes should first be resolved by an arbitrator

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that under ordinary contract principles the parties should be bound by an arbitration provision requiring that disputes be arbitrated only before particular fora
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: Commitments, Other Term Loan Commitments or Refinancing Term Commitments of a given Refinancing Series and (c) when used with respect to Loans or a Borrowing, refers to whether such Loans, or the Loans comprising such Borrowing are Term B-1 Loans, Term B-2 Loans, Term B-3 Loans, Term B-4 Loans, Incremental Term Loans, Other Term Loans, Refinancing Term Loans of a given Refinancing Series or Extended Term Loans of a given Term Loan Extension Series. Term B-1 Commitments, Term B-2 Commitments, Term B-3 Commitments, Term B-4 Commitments, Other Term Loan Commitments and Term Commitments (and in each case, the Loans made pursuant to such Commitments) that have different terms and conditions shall be construed to be in different Classes. Commitments (and, in each case, the Loans made pursuant to such Commitments) that have the same terms and conditions shall be construed to be in the same Class.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to excuse plaintiffs failure to comply with an analogous provision of the PLRA, § 1997e(e)). Id. The Cox panel’s dicta do not bind us. See, e.g., BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 742, 750 (6th Cir. 2010) (“[O]ne panel of [the Sixth Circuit] is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion.” (quoting United States v. Burroughs, 5 F.3d 192, 194 (6th Cir. 1993))). But in any event, as Mattox correctly argues, Cox is distinguishable. The plaintiff in Cox had not exhausted any of his claims before filing suit in federal court. Cox, 332 F.3d at 424. The Cox panel was thus likely correct that Rule 15(d) could not save an action that did not comply with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement in any way. See Floyd v. U.S. Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 278 (6th Cir. 1997), (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Callihan v. Options: A. holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted B. holding rules of procedure interpreted in same manner as statutes C. holding that a shotgun pleading is in no sense the short and plain statement of a claim required by rule 8 of the federal rules of civil procedure D. recognizing the liberal notice and simplified pleading principles underlying the federal rules of civil procedure E. holding that subsequently enacted federal statutes trump the rules of civil procedure

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that subsequently enacted federal statutes trump the rules of civil procedure
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 insurance information furnished to the Agent pursuant to Section 3.01(l) includes a true, complete and correct description of all insurance maintained by the Borrower or by the Borrower for its Subsidiaries as of the Closing Date. As of such date, such insurance is in full force and effect and all premiums then due and payable have been duly paid. The Borrower and its Subsidiaries have insurance in such amounts and covering such risks and liabilities as are customary under industry practice.

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: All representations and warranties made by or on behalf of the Borrower and the other Loan Parties, or any of them, to the Administrative Agent or any of the Lenders shall be true, accurate and complete in all material respects and shall not omit any material fact necessary to make the same not materially misleading.

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: that money order with Debtor’s filings and mailed it to the Court. Summerrain’s handling of Debtor’s filing fee in this manner violates Section 110(g)(1). The fact that Summerrain did not personally accept a check from Debtor but instead authorized an employee of Independant Paralegal Associates to do so does not change this conclusion because Summer-rain admits she personally placed the money order, along -with Debtor’s filings, in the mail. Moreover, the acts of Independant Paralegal Associates’ employees are imputable to the partnership and to Summer-rain, as general partner. See Gomez, 259 B.R. at 384 (finding acts of an employee of corporate petition preparer imputable to corporation); Bank of Denver v. Southeastern Capital Group, Inc., 763 F.Supp. 1552, 1560 (D.Colo.1991) (<HOLDING>)- Summer-rain’s argument that she relied on Options: A. holding counsel and appellants jointly liable under 1927 and rule 38 B. holding that under the texas uniform partnership act the government was entitled to collect the tax liability indisputably a partnership debt from any one of the general partners C. holding that general partners must notify limited partners of partnership opportunity to purchase adjacent property but not addressing whether 9404 requires affirmative consent of partners after such notice D. recognizing wellestablished colorado rule that partners are jointly and severally liable for the wrongs of the partnership E. holding that under california law partners are personally liable for the debts and liabilities of the partnership including its tax liability

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing wellestablished colorado rule that partners are jointly and severally liable for the wrongs of the partnership
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: 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). 6 . The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that "[n]o person shall ... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const, amend. V. It protects a defendant from being prosecuted a second time for the same offense after being acquitted of that offense; it also pro . The primacy of legislative intent in this analysis is a reflection of the principle that “the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy guarantee serves principally as a restraint on courts and prosecutors” and that "[t]he legislature remains free under the Double Jeopardy Clause to define crimes and fix punishments.” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). 9 . See Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Cf. Martin v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 1, Options: A. holding that to pass muster under the contrary to prong a state court need not cite relevant supreme court precedent or even be aware of relevant cases so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them B. holding aedpas contrary to clause does not require citation of our cases indeed it does not even require awareness of our eases so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them C. holding that state courts failure to discuss or even to be aware of federal precedent does not in itself render the decision contrary to federal law D. recognizing that a failure to cite supreme court decisions does not itself suggest a state court decision is contrary to such precedents so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them E. holding that failure to cite federal law does not mean that state court decision was contrary to established federal law state court need not even be aware of supreme court precedents so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that to pass muster under the contrary to prong a state court need not cite relevant supreme court precedent or even be aware of relevant cases so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them
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: Comply with the requirements of all Laws (including Flood Insurance Laws) and all orders, writs, injunctions and decrees applicable to it or to its business or property, except in such instances in which (a) such requirement of Law or order, writ, injunction or decree is being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted; or (b) the failure to comply therewith would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law , you waive your right to enforce against ebay , our assignees , our sublicensees , and their assignees your intellectual property rights in that content in connection with our , those assignees ' , and those sublicensees ' use of that content .

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: contended that a finding of jurisdiction over them would violate due process. Id. at 619, 112 S.Ct. 2160. The Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that a foreign state was a person for the purpose of the Due Process Clause, and held that Argentina had sufficient minimum corn tacts. Id. At the same time, however, the Supreme Court cited South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 323-324, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966) for the proposition that “States of the Union are not ‘persons’ for purposes of the Due Process Clause.” Id. Following Weltover, the vast majority of federal courts’ to address this issue have determined that foreign states are not persons within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Abelesz v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, 692 F.3d 661, 694 (7th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Frontera Res. Azerbaijan Corp. v. State Oil Options: A. holding school boards are persons within the meaning of the fifth amendment due process clause B. holding municipalities are not persons within the meaning of the due process clause of the fifth or fourteenth amendments C. holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 D. holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause E. holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof and throughout the Term (a) no Borrower, Guarantor nor any ERISA Affiliate sponsor, are obligated to contribute to, or are themselves an "employee benefit plan," as defined in Section 3(3) of ERISA or a "plan" as defined in Section 4975 of the Code, (b) none of the assets of a Borrower or Guarantor constitutes or will constitute "plan assets" of one or more such plans within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. Section 2510.3-101, as modified in operation by Section 3(42) of ERISA, (c) no Borrower nor Guarantor are or will be a "governmental plan" within the meaning of Section 3(32) of ERISA, and (d) transactions by or with Borrowers or Guarantor are not and will not be subject to state statutes regulating investment of, and fiduciary obligations with respect to, governmental plans. As of the date hereof, no Borrower, Guarantor nor any ERISA Affiliate maintains, sponsors or contributes to or has any obligation with respect to a "defined benefit plan" (within the meaning of Section 3(35) of ERISA) or a "multiemployer pension plan" (within the meaning of Section 3(37)(A) of ERISA). No Borrower nor Guarantor has engaged in any transaction in connection with which it could be subject to either a material civil penalty assessed pursuant to the provisions of Section 502 of ERISA or a material Tax imposed under the provisions of Section 4975 of the Code.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of a breach of Section 4.1 or Section 4.2 by the Executive, then the Executive shall immediately reimburse the Company the entire gross amount of the severance benefits paid to the Executive pursuant to Section 3 up to the date of such breach. The forfeiture provisions of this Section 4.4 shall be in addition to, and not in limitation of, any other remedies available to the Company at law or in equity.

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: that doing so hurts the candidate’s ... own chances of prevailing in the election”); Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 782-83 (9th Cir.2011) (recognizing the doctrine of “competitive standing” as a basis for challenging the eligibility of a ballot rival). The plaintiffs filed their complaint before the date of the 2012 general election, “[jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought, and ... after vesting, it cannot be ousted by subsequent events.” Mullan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 537, 539, 6 L.Ed. 154 (1824). By contrast, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied competitive standing to candidates who did not file their complaint until after President Barack Obama was sworn in to office. Drake, 664 F.3d at 784 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Goode, a presidential candidate on Options: A. holding that even if an agreement that title would pass once financing was obtained the most a creditor could claim was a security interest once the good was delivered B. holding that once the plaintiffs fixed term of employment expired he had no property interest as a matter of law C. holding that grandparent has no protected liberty interest in the visitation of a child of whom she once had custody D. holding that once president obama was sworn in plaintiffs competitive interest in running against a qualified candidate had lapsed E. holding that plaintiffs had no vested interest in former interpretation of state law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that once president obama was sworn in plaintiffs competitive interest in running against a qualified candidate had lapsed
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 party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such suit, action or proceeding by mailing a copy thereof (certified or registered mail, return receipt requested) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any manner permitted by law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (2010) (finding that "control” is defined as " 'exercise[ing] power or influence overt]' ” and that as "person in a position of trust” defendant was able to exercise sufficient control over victim to uphold conviction). As these cases make clear, one who qualifies under the statute may exert "control” not constrained by temporal circumstances. 15 . Any suggestion that somehow this Court’s precedent would compel a different outcome based on the facts of this case is misplaced. See Edmonds, 226 W.Va. 464, 702 S.E.2d 408 (upholding conviction where maintenance worker/occasional volunteer at a Christian school picked child up in his van and took her to a house he was remodeling where he sexually assaulted her); State ex rel. Harris v. Hatcher, No. 13-1236, 2014 WL 2439902 (May 29, 2014) (<HOLDING>). Justice KETCHUM, dissenting: The defendant Options: A. holding that whether bus driver who sexually assaulted student at both her house and his merely creates jury issue on operative elements of west virginia code 618d5a B. holding that schools failure to expel harassing student and permitting her to return following suspension and board plaintiffs bus did not constitute requisite affirmative act for statecreated danger C. holding that juveniles use of the f word in dispute with principal and another student over whether student had stolen her money did not constitute fighting words D. holding that fraud creates an exception to the rule E. holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that whether bus driver who sexually assaulted student at both her house and his merely creates jury issue on operative elements of west virginia code 618d5a
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither any Loan Party nor any Affiliate of any Loan Party or agent of any Loan Party shall, directly or indirectly, use the proceeds of any Credit Extension, or lend, contribute or otherwise make available such proceeds to any Subsidiary, joint venture partner or other individual or entity, to fund any activities of or business with any individual or entity, or in any Designated Jurisdiction, that, at the time of such funding, is the subject of Sanctions, or in any other manner that will result in a violation by any individual or entity (including any individual or entity participating in the transaction, whether as Lender, Administrative Agent, L/C Issuer, or otherwise) of Sanctions. The Loan Parties shall deliver to the Administrative Agent and Lenders any certification or other evidence requested from time to time by the Administrative Agent or any Lender, in the Administrative Agent’s sole discretion, confirming the Loan Parties’ compliance with this Section 7.20 .

assistant: Sanctions
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: (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182. 4 . We do not consider any argument that Allen is entitled to relief under R.C.M. 707(a)(1), which provides that "[t]he accused shall be brought to trial within 120 days after ... [plreferral of charges.” Bums and its progeny appear only to deal with claims of constitutional violations, not violations of military procedural rules. See, e.g., Burns, 346 U.S. at 139, 73 S.Ct. 1045 (explaining that federal civil courts have jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed alleging the proceedings under which they were convicted "denied them basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution”) (emphasis added); Dodson v. Zelez, 917 F.2d 1250, 1252-53 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Allen’s counsel effectively Options: A. holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal B. holding that a claim including a constitutional claim must have been asserted to the trial court to be raised on appeal C. holding that for a federal court to have jurisdiction to review courtmartial proceedings the asserted error must be of substantial constitutional dimension D. recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings E. holding that the affecting substantial rights language of rule 52b means that the error must have been prejudicial it must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that for a federal court to have jurisdiction to review courtmartial proceedings the asserted error must be of substantial constitutional dimension
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: Should any provision of this Agreement be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected by such holding and shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with their terms.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: served as WMC’s chief financial officer from 1989 to 1992, and having spent some 400 hours analyzing data to prepare for trial. R.O.A.Supp.Vol. 14 (order of 5/4/93 at 3); Vol. 47 at 5181. Moreover, the defense was provided with $5000 to retain Thomas, a qualified expert in the metals industry, and $200 per hour up to $7,500 to retain McCormack, a qualified expert on Ponzi schemes. Given these resources, there is no showing that the lack of additional accounting services prevented Kennedy from presenting his defense or countering Campbell’s testimony at trial. Cf. Ready, 574 F.2d at 1015 (finding no abuse of discretion in denying defendant a tax expert in a tax fraud prosecution where there was no indication that expert could have benefitted the defense); Aldridge, 484 F.2d at 660 (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the district court did Options: A. holding that defendant failed to show that lack of photographs of test plates used to analyze blood stains prejudiced his case B. holding an accountant is a fiduciary under the disposition clause where he wrongfully disbursed the plans funds C. holding that funds for an accountant were appropriately denied where defendant did not show that lack of an accountant prejudiced his case D. holding that appellants fourteenth amendment due process claim did not require reversal where they failed to show that they were prejudiced E. holding that district court appropriately dismissed suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the case was moot

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that funds for an accountant were appropriately denied where defendant did not show that lack of an accountant prejudiced his case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall pay the Executive a base salary at the rate of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00) per year, payable in accordance with the payroll practices of the Company for its executives and subject to such increases as the Board of Directors of the Company or the Compensation Committee (the “Board”) in its sole discretion may determine from time to time (the “Base Salary”).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Regardless of any action the Company or your Employer takes with respect to any or all income tax (including U.S. federal, state and local taxes and/or non-U.S. taxes), social insurance, payroll tax, payment on account or other tax-related withholding (“Tax-Related Items”), you acknowledge that the ultimate liability for all Tax-Related Items legally due by you is and remains your responsibility and that the Company and your Employer: (a) make no representations or undertakings regarding the treatment of any Tax-Related Items in connection with any aspect of the Cash-Based Awards, including the grant of Cash-Based Awards and any cash payments made by the Company in settlement of the Cash-Based Awards; and (b) do not commit to structure the terms of the grant or any aspect of the Cash-Based Award to reduce or eliminate your liability for Tax-Related Items.

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: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date hereof and shall continue for three (3) years, unless earlier terminated pursuant to Section 10 .2 . This Agreement may be renewed for successive two (2) year periods by written notice from ThermoGenesis at least ninety (90) days prior to expiration of the then current term of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of Holdings, Intermediate Holdings , the Borrower and each of its Restricted Subsidiaries has timely filed or caused to be filed all Tax returns and reports required to have been filed and has paid or caused to be paid all Taxes required to have been paid by it that are due and payable, including in its capacity as a withholding agent, except (a) Taxes (or any requirement to file Tax returns with respect thereto) that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which Holdings, the Borrower or such Restricted Subsidiary, as applicable, has set aside on its books adequate reserves in accordance with GAAP or (b) to the extent that the failure to file or pay, individually or in the aggregate, would not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of rights as he increases his identity with our society”). At the low end of this “ascending scale of rights” are excludable aliens. “Excluda-ble” aliens are those who seek admission to this country, but have not secured it. Aliens who fall into this category are not afforded any due process rights, unless Congress chooses to grant them. Id.; Knauff, 338 U.S. at 544, 70 S.Ct. 309 (“Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned”). On the high end of this scale are those aliens who have attained LPR status. While these individuals do not enjoy all the rights of citizens, their status entitles them to greater protection than other aliens. See, e.g., Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34, 103 S.Ct. 321, 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process B. holding that lprs are entitled to full procedural due process at the border even when returning to the united states C. holding that once defendant made appearance in cause he is entitled to notice of trial setting as matter of due process under fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution D. holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution E. holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that lprs are entitled to full procedural due process at the border even when returning to the united states