flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See Grandberry, 730 F.3d at 976. However, because we have determined that the police’s initial entry and search were unconstitutional, the government has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence obtained during the parole search was not fatally flawed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 183, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). There are two exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine under which the evidence might be admissible: (1) the ‘inevitable discovery’ exception, and (2) the ‘attenuated basis exception.’ See United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting United States v. Ramirez-Sandoval, 872 F.2d 1392, 1396 (9th Cir.1989)). These exceptions, while distinct, “converge to an extent, 9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Applying the attenuated basis and inevitable Options: A. holding that evidence supported finding of constructive possession of concealed narcotics in part because narcotics paraphernalia was found in residence B. recognizing that jurors have the right to reject that part of the evidence believed by them to be untrue and to accept that found by them to be true C. holding that alleged statements to thirdparties did not substantiate a hostile work environment claim where there was insufficient information as to when the statements were made how knowledge of them was acquired and when the plaintiff was informed of them if she was D. holding that the defendants unconstitutionally obtained statements to the police telling them that narcotics were located in the hood of his truck did not render the narcotics inadmissible because the police were trained to look under the hoods of vehicles when searching for drugs and therefore would have found them even had the defendant not directed them to look under the hood E. holding that the defendants sentences were properly enhanced under 3a12b because they assaulted an officer employed by the mississippi bureau of narcotics and during the assault made statements including they are the police lets kill them

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the defendants unconstitutionally obtained statements to the police telling them that narcotics were located in the hood of his truck did not render the narcotics inadmissible because the police were trained to look under the hoods of vehicles when searching for drugs and therefore would have found them even had the defendant not directed them to look under the hood
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: 12.3 if you believe that your work has been copied and posted on the products in a way that constitutes copyright infringement , please provide our designated agent with the following information :

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: the victim had no further contact with the defendant. I The defendant’s first claim is that the trial court violated his constitutional right to equal protection and due process’ when it declined to instruct the jury regarding “constancy of denial.” 1 At the center of the defendant’s argument is his contention that the constancy of accusation doctrine is unconstitutional and unfair. The defendant, therefore, contends that the constancy of denial instruction is constitutionally required to offset the harmful impact of the constancy of accusation instruction. We disagree. It is well settled that the doctrine of constancy of accusation does not violate an accused’s right to confrontation, equal protection or due process. See State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 290-91, 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (<HOLDING>); State v. Kelley, 229 Conn. 557, 563-67, 643 Options: A. holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation B. holding prior statement subject to crossexamination when made does not violate confrontation clause C. holding that doctrine does not violate due process D. holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause E. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that " 'a public employee’s freedom of speech is not sacrificed merely because the employee arranges to communicate privately with his employer rather than to spread his views before the public.' ” Kurtz, 855 F.2d at 727 (quoting Givhan v. W. Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 415-16, 99 S.Ct. 693, 697, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979)). However, while not dis-positive, the employee’s attempt at public communication is still a relevant factor in the "public concern” analysis. See Kurtz, 855 F.2d at 729 ("Kurtz’s profession of public concern loses force when it is considered that he took no affirmative steps ... to inform the public at large about, the problems with which he was so gravely concerned.”). See also Terrell v. Univ. of Texas Sys. Police, 792 F.2d 1360, 1362-63 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1064, 107 S.Ct. 948, Options: A. holding that it seems clear that when the contents of a communication are captured or redirected in any way an interception occurs at that time but also since the definition of interception includes the aural acquisition of the contents of the communication the interception must also be considered to occur where the redirected contents are first heard B. holding that as to each predicate act the plaintiff must allege the time place and contents of the misrepresentations C. holding that an fbi agents investigation of the written contents of a notebook that was lawfully in the possession of the fbi constituted a search that violated the defendants fourth amendment rights D. holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint E. holding that the contents of a notebook were not protected speech based in part on the fact that appellant made no effort to communicate the contents of the notebook to the public

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the contents of a notebook were not protected speech based in part on the fact that appellant made no effort to communicate the contents of the notebook to the public
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 possesses “facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to investigate further, and ... [that] a diligent investigation would have revealed that the plaintiffs were victims of ... the alleged tort.” Pennwalt, 314 Md. at 448-49, 550 A.2d at 1163—64. Y. We hold that, absent a showing of fraud or intentional concealment, the statute of limitations for a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, based on the termination of a contract, begins to accrue on the date that the contract was terminated. See D’Arcy and Assocs., Inc. v. K.P.M.G. Peat Marwick, L.L.P., 129 S.W.3d 25, 30 (Mo.Ct. App.2004) (stating that the “tortious conduct was complete when [the defendant] induced or caused the breach”); see also Hwang v. Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc., 840 F.Supp. 193, 196 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (<HOLDING>); Trembath v. Digardi, 43 Cal.App.3d 834, 118 Options: A. holding that the lmra preempted plaintiffemployees claim under michigan law for tortious interference with contractual relations breach of contract is an essential element of a tortious interference claim and resolution of such claim would require the court to interpret collective bargaining agreement to determine if that agreement had been breached B. holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court C. holding that the statute of limitations for a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations begins to run when the contract in question has been breached D. holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference E. holding that the first element in a prima facie case of tortious interference with contract is the existence of a valid contractual relationship

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the statute of limitations for a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations begins to run when the contract in question has been breached
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: LENDER AND BORROWERS, AFTER CONSULTING OR HAVING HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL, KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVE ANY RIGHTS ANY OF THEM MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LITIGATION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY LOAN DOCUMENT OR ANY OTHER RELATED INSTRUMENT OR AGREEMENT, OR ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THE FOREGOING, OR ANY COURSE OF CONDUCT, DEALING, STATEMENT (WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN), OR ACTIONS OF ANY OF THEM. NEITHER THE LENDER NOR ANY BORROWER SHALL SEEK TO CONSOLIDATE, BY COUNTERCLAIM OR OTHERWISE, ANY ACTION IN WHICH A JURY TRIAL HAS BEEN WAIVED WITH ANY OTHER ACTION IN WHICH A JURY TRIAL HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED, UNLESS A JURY TRIAL IN SUCH OTHER ACTION CANNOT BE WAIVED, IN WHICH CASE SUCH ACTIONS MAY BE CONSOLIDATED. THESE PROVISIONS SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN ANY RESPECT OR RELINQUISHED BY THE LENDER OR ANY BORROWER EXCEPT BY WRITTEN INSTRUMENT EXECUTED BY EACH RELEVANT PARTY.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 execution, delivery and performance of this Guaranty by the Guarantor and the consummation by the Guarantor of the transactions contemplated thereby do not and will not (i) conflict with or violate any provision of its Certificate of Incorporation, By-laws, articles of organization or operating agreement or (ii) conflict with, constitute a default (or an event which with notice or lapse of time or both would become a default) under, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation of, any agreement, indenture or instrument to which the Guarantor is a party, or (iii) result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment, injunction, decree or other restriction of any court or governmental authority to which the Guarantor is subject (including Federal and State securities laws and regulations), or by which any material property or asset of the Guarantor is bound or affected, except in the case of each of clauses (ii) and (iii), such conflicts, defaults, terminations, amendments, accelerations, cancellations and violations as could not, individually or in the aggregate, have or result in a Material Adverse Effect. The business of the Guarantor is not being conducted in violation of any law, ordinance or regulation of any governmental authority, except for violations which, individually or in the aggregate, do not have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: Use proceeds of (i) any Revolving Loans borrowed on the Closing Date to effect the Transactions (including, for the avoidance of doubt, to consummate the Refinancing), to pay the Transaction Costs and any excess for other general corporate purposes of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries not prohibited by this Agreement and (ii) any other Loans, Letters of Credit or Acceptances hereunder to finance Permitted Acquisitions and Investments permitted hereunder or for other purposes of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries not prohibited by this Agreement.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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 Participant acknowledges that the Award of RSUs hereunder, including the vesting of the RSUs and the number of Shares subject hereto, is subject to adjustment in the discretion of the Administrator upon the occurrence of certain events as provided in this Agreement and the Plan.

assistant: Adjustments
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 hereby employs Executive, and Executive hereby accepts such employment, for a term (as the same may be extended, the “Term”) commencing as of the Effective Date and continuing until April 30, 2020, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of Section 4. On April 30, 2020, the Term shall automatically be extended for successive two-year periods in accordance with the terms of this Agreement (subject to termination as aforesaid) unless either party notifies the other party of non-renewal in writing, in accordance with Section 8, 60 days prior to the expiration of the initial period or any subsequent renewal period.

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: This Agreement contains and constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties hereto respecting the subject matter hereof, and supersedes and cancels all previous negotiations, agreements, representations and writings in connection herewith. This Agreement may not be released, discharged, abandoned, supplemented, modified or waived, in whole or in part, in any manner, orally or otherwise, except by a writing of concurrent or subsequent date signed and delivered by a duly authorized officer or representative of each of the Parties hereto making specific reference to this Agreement and the provisions hereof being released, discharged, abandoned, supplemented, modified or waived.

assistant: Entire Agreements
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: Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 1702, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998)(<HOLDING>). With regard to Epstein, however, we reverse Options: A. holding that an official of an indian tribe should be stripped of his authority and corresponding immunity to act on behalf of his tribe whenever he exercises a power his tribe was powerless to convey to him B. holding that state did not have jurisdiction over tribe where tribe paid into workers compensation program but had not waived sovereign immunity C. holding that because a waiver of immunity is altogether voluntary on the part of the tribe and thus the tribe may prescribe the terms and conditions on which it consents to be sued and the manner in which the suit shall be conducted the issue must be determined in the forum that the tribe has chosen for determination of the viability of claims against it to wit arbitration D. holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity E. holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity
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 Administrative Agent shall be satisfied in its sole discretion with the title to the Oil and Gas Properties included in the Borrowing Base and that such Oil and Gas Properties constitute at least 85% of the present value of the Proven Reserves of the Borrower and the Guarantors as determined by the Administrative Agent in its sole discretion, as determined by the Administrative Agent in its sole discretion.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: with his client. Id. Strickland also establishes the proper prejudice inquiry in a situation like this in which there has been a denial of counsel “altogether” at a critical stage: that is, “prejudice is presumed.” Id. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Thus, here, as in Wiggins, the “ ‘clearly established’ precedent of Strickland ” governs. See Wiggins, 123 S.Ct. at 2536. Moreover, again as in Wiggins, a Supreme Court habeas case (here, Flores-Ortega) issued shortly after the relevant state court decision illustrates the proper application of Strickland to the particular facts of the case. Indeed, the Supreme Court made it even clearer in Flores-Ortega than it did in Williams that it was simply applying Strickland to the facts before it. See Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 477, 120 S.Ct. 1029 (<HOLDING>); 528 U.S. at 478, 120 S.Ct. 1029 (rejecting a Options: A. recognizing that roe v floresortega clarified the application of the strickland standard to a claim that an attorney was constitutionally deficient for failing to file a notice of appeal B. holding that the strickland test applies to claims that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal C. recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims D. holding strickland two prong test applies to ineffective assistance claims throughout trial including punishment E. holding that pennsylvanias test for ineffective assistance of counsel is not contrary to strickland

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the strickland test applies to claims that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a point which is squarely debated by the parties. Defendants maintain that this matter must be referred to arbitration, consistent with the arbitration clause, because Port Erie has already voluntarily appeared in the arbitration proceeding, because Port Erie unilaterally submitted the question of venue for AAA determination, and because Port Erie failed to institute an action to stay arbitration within the statutory period allowed under New York State law. We think Defendants’ analysis misses the mark in certain respects. For one, the mere presence of a generic choice-of-law provision does not, by itself, evidence an intent by the parties to incorporate into the Operating Agreement New York rules of arbitration. See Roadway Package Sys., Inc. v. Kayser, 257 F.3d 287, 289 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Defendants’ argument that Options: A. holding that a generic choiceoflaw clause standing alone is insufficient to support a finding that contracting parties intended to opt out of the faas default regime B. holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment C. holding witnesss testimony identifying appellant is sufficient standing alone to support conviction D. holding that adverse inference alone insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment E. holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a generic choiceoflaw clause standing alone is insufficient to support a finding that contracting parties intended to opt out of the faas default regime
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 agrees to indemnify and hold harmless each Investor and its Affiliates and their respective directors, officers, trustees, partners, members, managers, employees and agents, and their respective successors and assigns, from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities and expenses (including without limitation reasonable attorney fees and disbursements and other expenses incurred in connection with investigating, preparing or defending any action, claim or proceeding, pending or threatened and the costs of enforcement thereof) (collectively, “ Losses ”) to which such Person may become subject as a result of any breach of representation, warranty, covenant or agreement made by or to be performed on the part of the Company under the Transaction Documents, and will reimburse any such Person for all such amounts as they are incurred by such Person.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: submit the false audit report to the SEC, thereby making him criminally liable under the federal aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). The government then argues that because Pan-World submitted the false audit report to the SEC within the statute of limitations period, the statute of limitations had not expired on the implicitly c st Cir.1995) (stating “an aider and abettor charge [referring to subsections 2(a) and 2(b)] is implicit in all indictments ... so it need not be specifically pleaded” (quotation omitted) (alteration in original)); United States v. Perry, 643 F.2d 38, 45 (2d Cir.1981) (stating “the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2 can be read into an indictment which specifically charges only a substantive offense”); United States v. Lester, 363 F.2d 68, 72 (6th Cir.1966) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the district court erred in Options: A. holding that the fact of prior convictions under 924e need not be charged in an indictment and proven to a jury and also that the government need not charge in an indictment and prove to a jury that a defendants prior conviction constitutes a violent felony under 924e B. holding that trial court may charge on involuntary manslaughter only where evidence exists to support such a verdict C. holding an indictment need not specifically charge causing in order to support a jury verdict D. holding the failure of an indictment to expressly charge causing does not foreclose a subsequent conviction on a causation theory E. holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict

assistant: The best answer is C. holding an indictment need not specifically charge causing in order to support a jury verdict
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 be obligated to withhold amounts sufficient to satisfy any tax withholding or similar withholding obligations to which the Company or its Subsidiaries may be subject by reason of payment under this Award. The Participant expressly acknowledges and agrees that the Participant’s rights hereunder are subject to this obligation of the Company regarding any applicable taxes required to be withheld in connection with the Award, in a form and manner satisfactory to the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has filed all reports, schedules, forms, statements and other documents required to be filed by the Company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, including pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) thereof, for the two years preceding the Execution Date (or such shorter period as the Company was required by law or regulation to file such material) (the foregoing materials, including the exhibits thereto and documents incorporated by reference therein, being collectively referred to herein as the “ SEC Reports ”). As of their respective dates, the SEC Reports complied in all material respects with the requirements of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, as applicable, and none of the SEC Reports, when filed, contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The financial statements of the Company included in the SEC Reports comply in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and the rules and regulations of the SEC with respect thereto as in effect at the time of filing. Such financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis during the periods involved (“ GAAP ”), except as may be otherwise specified in such financial statements or the notes thereto and except that unaudited financial statements may not contain all footnotes required by GAAP, and fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the Company and its consolidated Subsidiaries as of and for the dates thereof and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods then ended, subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal, immaterial, year-end audit adjustments.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: ket but rather a submarket cognizable to antitrust analysis, if they had supported that allegation factually. See NCAA, 468 U.S. at 104 n. 26, 104 S.Ct. 2948 (“Per se rules may require considerable inquiry into market conditions before the evidence justifies a presumption of anticompetitive conduct.”). Defining a submarket is a fact-driven inquiry into such practical indicia as industry or public recognition of the submarket as a separate economic entity, the product’s peculiar characteristics and uses, unique production facilities, distinct customers, distinct prices, sensitivity to price changes, and specialized vendors. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325, 82 S.Ct. 1502, 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962); see also North Am. Soccer League v. NFL, 670 F.2d 1249, 1260 (2d Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has explained that the Options: A. holding that where the plea agreement required the government to inform the sentencing court of all defendants cooperation the issue is not whether the prosecutor enthusiastically disclosed his cooperation but whether the prosecutor disclosed all cooperation B. holding that trial court acted within its authority in rejecting a plea bargain in a capital case C. holding that the record of the case disclosed a distinct submarket for sports capital and skill D. recognizing women as a distinct group E. holding that the judge must allow the attorneys the opportunity to be heard on an initial 3850 motion in a capital case for the purpose of determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required and to hear legal argument relating to the motion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the record of the case disclosed a distinct submarket for sports capital and skill
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: is based in large part on the Court’s determination that the decisions of the Second and Eleventh Circuits hew more closely to the Supreme Court’s instruction that the jurisdictional provision of § 1001 should not be construed in a narrow or technical manner. See Rodgers, 466 U.S. at 480, 104 S.Ct. 1942. In addition, the Court also notes as persuasive the Government’s argument that this somewhat broader interpretation of § 1001’s jurisdictional scope is consistent with that taken by the Fourth Circuit in its interpretation of the jurisdictional scope of 18 U.S.C. § 111, which imposes criminal liability on, inter alia, persons who assault federal marshals or “person[s] employed to assist” federal marshals. 18 U.S.C. §§ 111, 1114; see United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Although § 111 differs from § 1001 in that § Options: A. holding that a district court is not authorized to sentence a defendant below the statutory minimum unless the government filed a substantial assistance motion pursuant to 18 usc 3553e and ussg 5k11 or the defendant falls within the safetyvalve of 18 usc 3553f B. holding that the scope of 18 usc 111 is broad enough to include assaults on local law enforcement officials responsible for housing federal prisoners pursuant to a contract with the marshals service C. holding that 18 usc 3625 does not preclude claims that the bop acted contrary to established federal law violated the constitution or exceeded its statutory authority when it acted pursuant to 18 usc 3621 D. holding that employees of county jail that housed federal prisoners pursuant to contract with the federal government were not federal employees even though county jail had to comply with federal rules and regulations E. holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc 241

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the scope of 18 usc 111 is broad enough to include assaults on local law enforcement officials responsible for housing federal prisoners pursuant to a contract with the marshals service
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not waived.” Zapata, 175 F.R.D. at 577. Zapata held that the reasonableness of precautionary measures requires consideration of the amount of notice a party received before production, the number of documents that the party actually produced, and how many of those documents they produced inadvertently. Id. Applying these factors, our court’s case law counsels against finding a waiver when a party must sift through a large expert report in a short amount of time and only produces a small number of documents inadvertently. See id. (finding evidence of reasonable precautionary measures when defense counsel had seven days’ notice, produced more than 1,000 documents, and inadvertently produced just one document during three and half years of litigation); see also Wallace, 179 F.R.D. at 314 (<HOLDING>); but see Am. Cas. Co. v. Healthcare Indem., Options: A. holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term B. holding defendant had taken reasonable precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure because defendants attorney and an experienced legal assistant each reviewed thousands of documents before production C. holding that the district court did not err in determining that inadvertent disclosure did not result in waiver D. holding arbitration panel had authority to order the prehearing production of documents from a nonparty E. holding that the inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document does not waive the attorneyclient privilege if attorney took all reasonable steps to avoid disclosure and asserted the privilege as soon as the disclosure became known

assistant: The best answer is B. holding defendant had taken reasonable precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure because defendants attorney and an experienced legal assistant each reviewed thousands of documents before production
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 speech was on a matter of public concern; (3) whether the government’s interests, as employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public service are sufficient to outweigh the plaintiffs free speech interests; (4) whether the protected speech was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action; and (5) whether the defendant would have reached the same employment decision in the absence of the protected conduct. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “The first three elements are issues of law for the court to decide, while the last two are factual issues typically decided by the jury.” Id. The parties agree that Denton’s testimony at the arbitration hearing was not part of his official duties and was therefore protected speech. See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (<HOLDING>). “At the second step, we determine whether the Options: A. holding that under the first amendment speech can be pursuant to a public employees official job duties even though it is not required by or included in the employees job description or in response to a request by the employer B. holding that the plaintiffs first amendment retaliation claims are deficient because in each case the incidents upon which plaintiffs base their pleadings concerned personal grievances expressed as employees generally relating to their official duties work schedules working conditions or employer administrative policies and internal operations rather than to any matters of public concern raised by plaintiffs as private citizens C. holding that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties the employees are not speaking as citizens for first amendment purposes and the constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline D. holding that probation department employees are not county employees E. holding that the first amendment does not prohibit managerial discipline based on an employees expressions made pursuant to official responsibilities

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties the employees are not speaking as citizens for first amendment purposes and the constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline
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 use the net proceeds from the sale of the Securities hereunder as set forth on Schedule 4.9 and, other than as expressly set forth on such schedule, for working capital purposes and shall not use such proceeds: (a) for the satisfaction of any portion of the Company’s debt (other than payment of trade payables in the ordinary course of the Company’s business and prior practices), (b) for the redemption of any Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents, (c) for the settlement of any outstanding litigation or (d) in violation of FCPA or OFAC regulations.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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 can end this license for specific content by deleting such content from the services , or generally by closing your account , except ( a ) to the extent you shared it with others as part of the service and they copied , re-shared it or stored it and ( b ) for the reasonable time it takes to remove from backup and other systems .

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: to counts three and five on May 26,1998. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to have the sentence imposed in accord with the September 15, 1992 Guidelines, which defendant claimed were in effect when he committed the offenses on January 15, 1998. The statewide presumptive plea offer for the subject offenses under the September 1992 Guidelines was 364 days in the county jail as a condition of probation. Defendant argued that a sentence imposed in accord with the February 1998 Guidelines would violate the ex post facto provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions because the application of those guidelines made the punishment for the crime more burdensome than the September 1992 Guidelines. See Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70, 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69, 70 L.Ed. 216, 217 (1925) (<HOLDING>). The motion was denied and defendant was Options: A. holding that every law that changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed is an ex post facto law within the words and the intent of the prohibition B. holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause C. holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in applying remedial holding of booker at sentencing D. holding that one way in which the ex post facto provision of the constitution can be violated is by applying a law that makes more burdensome the punishment of a crime after its commission E. holding that an ex post facto claim can only be successful if the law can be characterized as punishment in the constitutional sense

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that one way in which the ex post facto provision of the constitution can be violated is by applying a law that makes more burdensome the punishment of a crime after its commission
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: Consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the “ Closing ”), shall, unless otherwise agreed to by the Partnership and the Sellers, take place via electronic exchange of documents, at 10:00 a.m., Central Time, on the later of (a) the first business day after the conditions set forth in Section 2 have been satisfied or waived (other than conditions which, by their nature, are to be satisfied on the Closing Date) and (b) such other date and time as to which the parties agree in writing, in each case subject to the rights of the parties under Sections 2 and 6 . The date on which the Closing occurs is herein referred to as the “ Closing Date .” The Closing shall be deemed effective as of 12:01 a.m., Central Time, on the Closing Date.

assistant: Closings
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: dissection. Appellant did not tell the agents he did not want to talk with them. Appellant stated, “I ain’t got nothing else to say man.” This statement is ambiguous because it is unclear whether appellant lacked additional information or the desire to share it. Unlike Day, in which the defendant’s statement implicitly referenced a recent Miranda warning, appellant’s alleged invocation of his right to silence occurred long after receiving the Miranda warning. As the district court observed, appellant was “incessantly cooperative” with the agents throughout the interview. Unlike Day’s refusal to say anything to his interrogators, appellant’s behavior indicated that he had no reservations about talking with the agents. See also State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407, 416 (Minn.1992) (<HOLDING>). Based on the totality of circumstances Options: A. holding that a defendants statement that he did not want to talk about what he did the night before but was willing to talk about lighter subjects was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent in part because the defendant previously exhibited willingness to talk with police B. holding that officers failure to talk to asserted alibi witnesses did not constitute a violation of the defendants constitutional rights C. holding that a suspects statements to the police to the effect that his constitution will protect him that the police have nothing along with his negative response to a police question whether he had anything to say about what he was being arrested for followed by his question who said i did this did not amount to a clear invocation of the right to remain silent under davis D. holding that doyle applied to statement as regards to what happened this evening i want to talk to my attorney E. holding i might want to talk to an attorney to be ambiguous

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a defendants statement that he did not want to talk about what he did the night before but was willing to talk about lighter subjects was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent in part because the defendant previously exhibited willingness to talk with police
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: neither these terms nor your use of the services convey or grant to you any rights : ( i ) in or related to the services except for the limited license granted above ; or ( ii ) to use or reference in any manner uber 's company names , logos , product and service names , trademarks or services marks or those of uber 's licensors .

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: During the Employment Period, the Company shall pay to the Executive a base salary at the rate of no less than $950,000 per calendar year (the “Base Salary”), less applicable deductions, and prorated for any partial month or year, as applicable. The Base Salary shall be reviewed for increase by the Compensation Committee of the Company (the “Compensation Committee”) no less frequently than annually and may be increased in the discretion of the Compensation Committee. Any such adjusted Base Salary shall constitute the “Base Salary” for purposes of this Agreement. The Base Salary shall be paid in substantially equal installments in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll procedures. The Executive’s Base Salary may not be decreased during the Employment Period. During the Employment Period, the Executive’s total compensation for each fiscal year shall be the highest total compensation among all individuals employed by the Company or any Company Affiliate for such fiscal year.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 7 Sexuality Res. & Soc. Pol’y 176, 186, 188 (2010) (noting that in a national survey, 95 percent of gay men and 84 percent of lesbian women reported that they “had little or no choice about their sexual orientation.”). Finally, Plaintiffs note that homosexual citizens constitute a minority group that lacks sufficient political power to protect themselves against discriminatory laws. In fact, the history of same-sex marriage bans across the nation illustrates the historical lack of political power possessed by gays and lesbians. Plaintiffs point out that not only do homosexuals fit all factors to be considered a suspect classification, but in fact, several courts have already admitted as much. See, e.g., SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471, 480-84 (9th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>); see also Pedersen, 881 F.Supp.2d at 294 Options: A. holding that it is impermissible to use a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror based on race B. holding use of peremptory strike against gay juror failed heightened scrutiny C. holding that it was not iac to decline to use peremptory strike on a potential juror whose statements hinted at possible bias against defendant where counsel strategically used peremptory strikes against jurors who might have been more likely to convict D. holding that trial courts erroneous refusal to strike juror for cause impaired defendants statutory right to his allotted number of peremptory challenges E. holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause

assistant: The best answer is B. holding use of peremptory strike against gay juror failed heightened scrutiny
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 the Seller to the applicable Investors regarding the Mortgage Loans and Servicing Rights in any Servicing Agreement or otherwise are incorporated herein by reference as of the dates originally made, and inure to the benefit of the Purchaser.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The rights and remedies against, and with respect to, a Defaulting Lender under this Section 2.24 are in addition to, and cumulative and not in limitation of, all other rights and remedies that the Administrative Agent and each Lender, each LC Issuing Bank, each Swing Line Bank or the Borrower may at any time have against, or with respect to, such Defaulting Lender. In particular, subject to Section 7.15 , no reallocation under Section 2.24(a)(iv) shall constitute a waiver or release of any claim the Borrower, the Administrative Agent, any LC Issuing Bank, any Swing Line Bank or any Lender may have against a Defaulting Lender arising from such Lender having become a Defaulting Lender, including any claim of a Non-Defaulting Lender as a result of such Non-Defaulting Lender’s increased Outstanding Credits following such reallocation.

assistant: No Waivers