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: or non-constitutional error associated with a sentence issued under the applicable provisions of the Guidelines. Id. at 769. Since the Sixth Amendment is not implicated when a sentence is enhanced based on a prior conviction, id. at 756; Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 243-48, 118 S.Ct. 1219, the district court did not commit a constitutional error in enhancing Alvarez-Varela’s sentence. The district court did not commit a non-constitutional error because the district court sentenced Alvarez-Varela both under the then-mandatory Guidelines and independently, based on the statutory maximum provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), considering sufficiently the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Knows His Gun, No. 04-30302, slip op. 1739, 1748-49 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2006) (<HOLDING>). Because we further conclude that the sentence Options: A. holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a B. holding that guidelines should be accorded the same weight as each other factor listed in 3553a C. holding that even without booker constitutional error in the district courts application of the guidelines there could be nonconstitutional error where the court applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion D. holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the 3553a factors or to discuss each of the 3553a factors E. holding that there is no nonconstitutional error under booker where the district court sentencing in the alternative sufficiently considered the guidelines as well as the other factors listed in 3553a

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that there is no nonconstitutional error under booker where the district court sentencing in the alternative sufficiently considered the guidelines as well as the other factors listed in 3553a
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 the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.' ”) (quoting Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 30, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2104, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974)). 13 . If the government were correct that X-Citement Video announced a new rule, this would provide an additional ground for our conclusion that the cause and prejudice requirement does not apply. We have consistently permitted defendants to challenge their convictions in § 2255 motions, where there has been an intervening change in the law after the time for direct appeal has run. See, e.g., Sood, 969 F.2d at 775 (defendants pled guilty and did not challenge their convictions until post-conviction collateral proceedings); see also Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (<HOLDING>). 14 .The district court shall enter an order Options: A. holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleged to be cause for the procedural default of other claims is itself an independent claim subject to the procedural requirements of exhaustion B. holding that the novelty of a petitioners claim can constitute cause for a procedural default C. holding prosecutorial misconduct claim barred by procedural default D. holding that a federal court may excuse a state habeas petitioners procedural default if the petitioner can show cause for the failure to raise the claim and prejudice resulting from such failure E. holding judicial recusal claim barred because of procedural default

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the novelty of a petitioners claim can constitute cause for a procedural default
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 party seeking appeal must file notice that sets forth (1) the name of each party to the proceeding, (2) the judgment, order, or part, thereof being appealed, and (3) the name of the court to which the appeal is taken. Rule 3(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP); see also Rule 58.1 of the United States Court of Federal Claims (incorporating requirements of Rule 3(c) of FRAP). Wallace’s petition clearly meets these requirements. In addition, Wallace’s petition was timely if treated as a notice of appeal. See Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of FRAP. Because we conclude that the petition should be construed as a timely notice of appeal, mandamus relief is not appropriate. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 Options: A. holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury B. recognizing that the party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving entitlement to those fees C. holding that a party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief such as by appeal D. holding that the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil bears the burden of proving that grounds for this action exist E. holding that the burden of proving a violation of the idea lies on the party seeking relief during the administrative process

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief such as by 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: this agreement comprises the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous negotiations , discussions or agreements , whether written or oral , between the parties regarding the subject matter contained herein .

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: All notices, requests, consents and other communications required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given (i) if delivered personally, when delivered; (ii) if delivered by overnight carrier, on the first business day following such delivery; (iii) if delivered by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, on the third business day after having been mailed in Los Angeles, California; or (iv) if delivered by electronic transmission, at the time when sent, provided that a copy of the item delivered is sent to the addressee by first class mail. All such communications, if to the Corporation or the Directors, shall be delivered to the Corporation’s principal office, as set forth above, or if to any Shareholder, shall be delivered to the Shareholder’s address at his, her or its address as set forth in the Corporation’s records or at such other place as such party may notify the Corporation in accordance with this paragraph.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party has had an opportunity to negotiate fully the terms of this Agreement and to consult with counsel with respect thereto. Accordingly, any rule of construction seeking to resolve any ambiguities against the drafting party shall not be applicable in the interpretation of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: as true and credible the officers’ testimony at the hearing. We believe, however, that the court of appeals has misconstrued the legal significance of the facts as thus construed. Actual Authority On the basis of the testimony elicited during the suppression hearing, the trial court could have found, in support of its ultimate ruling, (1) that Reed was the exclusive owner of the house, (2) that the officers knew that Reed did not “live” or sleep in the room that the appellant inhabited, and (3) that Reed opened the door to the appellant’s bedroom for the officers to search it. The trial court could also have chosen to disbelieve the testimony of the appellant’s girlfriend that Reed was excluded from entering the room without express permission. That Reed did not sle .2d 347, 349 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. O’Neal, 287 Pa. Super. 238, Options: A. holding that a lessee of a home could not consent to a search of a bedroom that was used exclusively by a temporary gratuitous guest because the guest had an expectation of privacy in the bedroom B. holding that child cannot consent to search of parents bedroom C. holding that a mother had apparent authority to consent to a search of her adult sons bedroom including a closed vinyl bag found in the bedroom D. holding that as owner of the residence the grandfather had actual authority to consent to a search of the defendants bedroom because there was no evidence that grandfather lacked authority to enter defendants room and because defendants bedroom did not have a lock or anything restricting access to the room the court found that the grandfather shared common authority over the bedroom E. holding that a defendants sister could consent to a search of only the common areas of their shared house and her own bedroom and explicitly stating that the sister could not consent to search the defendants bedroom because the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her own bedroom

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a defendants sister could consent to a search of only the common areas of their shared house and her own bedroom and explicitly stating that the sister could not consent to search the defendants bedroom because the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her own bedroom
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 extension, agreements and waiver set forth herein shall be limited precisely as written and shall not be deemed to be an extension or agreement to any other act by Borrower which is prohibited by the Credit Agreement or a waiver of any covenant, liability or obligation of Borrower, except as expressly set forth herein. This Agreement: (a) except as specifically provided in Section 2 above, in no way shall be deemed to be a consent or an agreement on the part of Agent or any Lender to waive any covenant, liability or obligation of Borrower, any Guarantor or any third party or to waive any right, power, or remedy of Agent or any Lender; (b) in no way shall be deemed to imply a willingness on the part of Agent or any Lender to grant any similar or other future waivers or to agree to any future consents, amendments or modifications to any of the terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement or the other Loan Documents; (c) shall not in any way, prejudice, limit, impair or otherwise affect any rights or remedies of Agent or any Lender under the Credit Agreement or any of the other Loan Documents, including, without limitation, Agent’s or any Lender’s right to demand strict performance of each Loan Party’s liabilities and obligations to Agent and the Lenders and the Obligations under the Loan Documents at all times; (d) in no way shall obligate Agent or any Lender to make any future amendments, waivers, consents or modifications to the Credit Agreement or any other Loan Document; and (e) is not a continuing waiver with respect to any failure to perform any Obligation. Borrower acknowledges and agrees that: (i) except as expressly set forth herein, the Credit Agreement has not been amended or modified in any way by this Agreement, (ii) neither Agent nor any Lender waives any failure by Borrower to perform its Obligations under the Credit Agreement or any of the other Loan Documents after giving effect to the extension provided herein, and (iii) Agent and each Lender is relying upon Borrower’s representations, warranties and agreements, as set forth herein and in the Loan Documents in entering into this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a satisfaction of Borrower’s Obligations. This Agreement shall be deemed to be one of the Loan Documents.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 634 F.3d at 1352 n. 18. Accordingly,' Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their vagueness- claim as to this phrase. The Court also agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits on their vagueness challenge regarding the phrase “casino-style games.” See Satz Response at 14-15; Seminole Tribe Response at 8. Although Plaintiffs contend that this phrase is “obscure and perplexing,” Motion at 4, Plaintiffs also concede that the Court may look to a term’s common or ordinary meaning to define it. Id. (citing State v. Nichols, 892 So.2d 1221, 1227 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005)). The phrase “casino-style games” has a common or ordinary meaning that is known to the general population. See Eckhardt, 466 F.3d at 944 (<HOLDING>). “Casino-style games” refers to the types of Options: A. recognizing we must give insurance policy language its ordinary and generally accepted meaning unless the policy shows that the words used are intended to impart a technical or different meaning B. holding that a statute is not vague where the words themselves possess a common and generally accepted meaning C. holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself D. holding legislatures intent is determined from plain and common meaning of words used E. recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a statute is not vague where the words themselves possess a common and generally accepted meaning
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No ERISA Event has occurred or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, is reasonably expected to occur that, individually or in the aggregate, would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and Rehabilitative Servs., 698 So.2d 1194, 1199 (Fla.1997) (mentally retarded woman who became pregnant while in custody of state agency stated cause of action for negligence against agency employees who allegedly failed to follow agency’s rules and carry out their assigned duties in supervising patients); Butler v. Circulus, Inc., 557 S.W.2d 469, 475 (Mo.App.1977) (mentally retarded minor plaintiff who was resident and student at defendant’s licensed institution stated cause of action for negligence against defendant for failing to supervise employees who allegedly physically and mentally abused plaintiff as part of a behavior modification program); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323-324; cf. Rogers v. S.C. Dept. of Parole & Comm. Corrections, 320 S.C. 253, 464 S.E.2d 330 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 319, 102 Options: A. holding that plaintiffs who alleged a subjective chill of their first amendment rights failed to establish specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm B. holding that common law duty to warn arises when a person being released from custody has made a specific threat of harm directed at a specific individual C. holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person D. holding a duty to warn arises only when the potential victim is known and foreseeable E. holding that chilling effect claim must still be rooted in specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm to convey standing

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that common law duty to warn arises when a person being released from custody has made a specific threat of harm directed at a specific individual
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 may be executed in two or more counterparts, including via facsimile or email in “portable document format” (“.pdf”) form transmission, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when two or more counterparts have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered to the other Party, it being understood that all parties need not sign the same counterpart.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Term, Executive shall serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company . Executive shall report solely and directly to the Board . Executive shall have the powers, authorities, and duties of management usually vested in the President and Chief Executive Officer of a corporation of a similar size and nature to the Company, subject to the legal directives of the Board in exercising its general oversight function.

assistant: Positions
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 use the netflix service you must have internet access and a netflix ready device , and provide a current , valid , accepted method of payment , which you may update from time to time ( `` payment method '' ) .

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: on her assertion that the State advocated a factual theory of her involvement in Cave’s dismemberment during her trial that was inconsistent with its theory during the Pitonyak trial. Citing excerpts from the closing arguments at each trial, Hall argues that during the Pitonyak trial “the State argued that it was Pitonyak’s idea to mutilate the body and the evidence showed appellant did not participate,” while “the theory and argument were exactly opposite” in her trial. In her first point of error, Hall argues that this claimed inconsistency violated her due process rights. See Thompson v. Calderon, 120 F.3d 1045, 1056-59 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc), rev’d on other grounds, 523 U.S. 538, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998); see also Smith v. Groose, 205 F.3d 1045, 1052 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In her second point of error, Hall similarly Options: A. holding that deprivation of property must conform to due process principles B. holding that circuit rule that prosecutions use of contradictory theories violates due process would fall within teagues watershed exception C. holding that use of inherently factually contradictory theories violates the principles of due process D. holding that the knowing use of false testimony to obtain a conviction violates due process E. holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that use of inherently factually contradictory theories violates the principles of due process
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 ANY ENFORCEMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY MATTERS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT, EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.

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 payments and benefits provided for in Sections 5(b) and (c) shall be conditioned on the Executive or, in the event of his death, his estate, executing and delivering to the Company a full mutual release of all claims that the Executive, his heirs and assigns may have against the Company, its affiliates and subsidiaries and each of their respective directors, officers, employees and agents, and of all claims that the Company shall have against the Executive, his heirs and assigns, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Company and the Executive (the “ Release ”). The Release must become enforceable and irrevocable on or before sixtieth (60 th ) day following the Termination Date. The Company shall execute the Release on the date that the Executive executes the Release. If the Executive (or his estate) fails to execute without revocation the Release, he shall be entitled to the Accrued Obligations only and no other benefits under Sections 5(b) and (c). The severance provided under Section 5(c)(ii) shall commence in the calendar month following the month in which the Release becomes enforceable and irrevocable and will be paid in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices. If, however, the sixty (60) day period in which the Release must become enforceable and irrevocable begins in one year and ends in the following year, the Company shall commence payment of the severance installments in the second year in the later of January and the first month the first calendar month following the month in which the Release becomes effective and irrevocable. The first installment shall include, however, all amounts that would otherwise have been paid to the Executive between the Termination Date and the Executive’s receipt of the first installment, assuming the first installment would otherwise have been paid in the month following the month in which the Termination Date occurs. The prorated Annual Bonus payable in Section 5(b)(ii) and the Annual Bonus payable 5(c)(iii) shall be paid when Annual Bonuses are paid to other senior executives of the Company generally.

assistant: Payments
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: 24.035 motion, however, the alleged Brady violation must be such that it supports a conclusion that the movant would not have pled guilty had he been provided with the undisclosed evidence. 1. Nondisclosure of mere impeachment evidence is insufficient to invalidate an otherwise voluntary plea. Although “[t]he principles of Brady are applicable to the entry of a plea of guilty,” Scroggins, 859 S.W.2d at 707, they are applicable only to the extent that the nondisclosed evidence is both exculpatory and material; a post-guilty-plea claim involving the nondisclosure of mere impeachment evidence (even if it might have been material in the context of a trial) is insufficient to invalidate an otherwise voluntary plea. U.S. v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628-33, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, the prior conviction evidence Wallar Options: A. holding that a criminal defendant can waive important constitutional rights by entering into a plea bargain B. holding that defendant had ample opportunity to crossexamine government witness including the terms of a plea agreement and that further impeachment was speculative and minimal at best C. holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant D. holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness E. holding that the constitution does not require the government to disclose impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the constitution does not require the government to disclose impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant
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 and delivery of this Agreement by Seller, the performance of Seller’s obligations hereunder, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and the compliance with the terms hereof (a) do not conflict with or contravene any judgment, order, decree, rule, regulation, statute or other law or restriction of any court, government or governmental agency to which Seller is, or its properties or assets are, subject or by which Seller is, or its properties or assets are, bound; (b) do not conflict with, contravene, result in a breach of any terms of, or constitute a default under, any provision of any material contract to which Seller is a party or by which any of her properties or assets are bound; and (c) do not violate any law, judgment, order, decree, statute, ordinance, rule or regulation applicable to Seller, or any permit, license, or approval of any governmental authority.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: years is the maximum sentence a judge may impose without any additional findings by a jury. However, HRS § 706-668.5 (1993) provides in relevant part that “[m]ultiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms run consecutively.” The imposition of prison terms in consecutive sequence, then, does not result in “an increase beyond the maximum authorized statutory sentence,” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 496 n. 19, 120 S.Ct. 2348, ie., beyond one that can be imposed simply on the jury verdict and, thus, does not implicate Apprendi and its progeny. However, the court’s discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence is still circumscribed. See, e.g., State v. Vellina, 106 Hawai'i 441, 450, 106 P.3d 364, 373 (2005) (<HOLDING>); State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai'i 127, 150, 890 Options: A. holding unconstitutional defendants sentence of death based upon the holding in roper supra and remanding for the montgomery circuit court to set aside the defendants death sentence and to sentence him to the only other sentence available life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole B. holding that omission was not plain error C. holding that it was plain error for the circuit court to sentence the defendant to consecutive prison terms based upon uncharged alleged misconduct D. holding that plain error review was not available for alleged improperly admitted testimony E. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that it was plain error for the circuit court to sentence the defendant to consecutive prison terms based upon uncharged alleged misconduct
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: an application. United States v. Errera, 616 F.Supp. 1145, 1149 (D.Md.1985) (citations omitted); see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 237-38, 103 S.Ct. 2817, 2331-32, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). There is no magic formula for evidence of intent to flee. The issuing judge must simply determine whether the affidavit supporting the wiretap application under § 2516(l)(i), when read as a whole, establishes probable cause to believe that the missing individual is purposely evading the authorities out of fear that he will otherwise be prosecuted for an enumerated crime. Moreover, the Court notes that determinations by an issuing judge are accorded substantial deference upon a subsequent suppression motion. United States v. Brone, 792 F.2d 1504, 1506 (9th Cir. 1986); see Errera, 616 F.Supp. at 1149 (<HOLDING>). The function of this Court, which is Options: A. holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself B. holding that the validity of an administrative order is properly before the court when it has been directly placed in issue C. holding that failure to follow state law requiring issuing judge to record testimony did not affect validity of warrant D. holding a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the fourth amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed E. holding that where electronic surveillance has been authorized by a judicial officer the fact that the issuing judge found probable cause is itself a substantial factor tending to uphold the validity of the order issued

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where electronic surveillance has been authorized by a judicial officer the fact that the issuing judge found probable cause is itself a substantial factor tending to uphold the validity of the order issued
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: notes. Defendants maintain that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, in light of FSIA immunity, as to Plaintiff’s remaining claim for breach of contract and the affirmátive pleading of equitable estoppel. The Court will consider these arguments when addressing these specific claims below. 11 . Neither .party suggests that analysis of this issue differs as to the Venezuelan Ministry of Finance. 12 . Moreover, as Price recognized “[u]nlike private entities, foreign nations are the juridical equals of the government that seeks to assert jurisdiction over them.” 294 F.3d at 98. 13 . To the extent Defendants contend that the FSIA, itself, requires a constitutional due process analysis, this contention is at odds with the Supreme Court’s notation in Samantar, 130 S.Ct. at 2292 n. 20 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). 14 . The Court will address Options: A. recognizing that the fsia makes personal jurisdiction over a foreign state automatic when an exception to immunity applies and service of process has been accomplished in accordance with 28 usc 1608 B. holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc 1330a and proper service under 28 usc 1608 C. holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction equals subject matter jurisdiction plus valid service of process D. recognizing exception E. recognizing the need for limited jurisdictional discovery to establish exception to the fsia

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that the fsia makes personal jurisdiction over a foreign state automatic when an exception to immunity applies and service of process has been accomplished in accordance with 28 usc 1608
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: and, thus, the order fell easily within the ambit of Rule 2 (a)(6). But even more to the point, National Enterprises has taken inconsistent positions with respect to the chancery court’s 1994 order. In its first notice of appeal in 1994, National Enterprises referred to the 1994 order as a “final Order” and stated that it was appealing issues relating to the deeds, easements, and the License Agreement and specifically mentioned ingress and egress and parking. Because National Enterprises failed to perfect its appeal in a timely fashion by tendering the record too late, it failed to appeal the 1994 order. Because the order was not appealed, it became a final order and became binding on all the parties. See, e.g., Millers Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fauria, 279 Ark. 291, 651 S.W.2d 80 (1983) (<HOLDING>). In addition to its notice of appeal, on May Options: A. recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment B. holding that poliey language stating that insurer will pay all interest accruing on judgment against its insured requires an insurer to pay interest on the entire judgment amount C. holding that court of appeals was without jurisdiction to modify judgment against insurer because judgment against insurer became final when it failed to appeal D. holding that in a dispute between insurer and insured in which the insurer admitted liability hut disputed the amount of damages it was only after entry of a judgment upon that verdict that the claim became liquidated E. holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that court of appeals was without jurisdiction to modify judgment against insurer because judgment against insurer became final when it failed to 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: post any virus , worm , spyware , or any other computer code , file , or program that may or is intended to disable , overburden , impair , damage , or hijack the operation of any hardware , software , or telecommunications equipment , or any other aspect of the service or communications equipment and computers connected to the service ;

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: October 1, 1998 and October 1, 2000. Under certain circumstances, failure to appeal an added assessment, in itself, may support a conclusion that the municipality is entitled to a hearing-on the issue of change in value under the Freeze Act. Here, however, defendant has provided no explanation of the added assessment, and the Steinhart Certification makes no reference to the added assessment as evidencing that a change in value occurred as of October 1, 2000. Plaintiffs failure to appeal does not compensate for defendant’s failure to present any proofs that the “alterations” which were the basis for the added assessment resulted in a substantial and meaningful change in the value of the subject property. Cf. United States Postal Serv. v. Town of Kearny, 19 N.J.Tax 282 (Tax 2001) (<HOLDING>). Defendant has not provided the court with any Options: A. holding that an application is pending from the time it is first filed emphasis added B. holding defendants failure to object to the drug quantity assessment in the presentence report at sentencing was a waiver of the issue on appeal C. holding that the only question on a rule 35a motion is whether the sentence imposed was illegal on its face emphasis added D. holding that failure to appeal an added assessment did not preclude application of the freeze act where the added assessment was improperly imposed E. holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that failure to appeal an added assessment did not preclude application of the freeze act where the added assessment was improperly imposed
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 will, and will cause each of its Material Subsidiaries to, (a) keep and maintain all tangible property material to the conduct of the business of the Company and its Subsidiaries (taken as a whole) in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear and casualty and condemnation excepted, except as otherwise permitted by Section 6.03 and (b) subject to the qualifications, if applicable, in the definition of “Mortgage Instruments”, maintain, in all material respects, with carriers reasonably believed by the Company to be financially sound and reputable (i) insurance in such amounts (with no greater risk retention) (after giving effect to any self-insurance reasonable and customary for similarly situated Persons engaged in the same or similar businesses as the Company and the applicable Material Subsidiaries) and against such risks as are customarily maintained by companies of established repute engaged in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations and (ii) all insurance required pursuant to the Collateral Documents. The Company will furnish to the Administrative Agent, upon any reasonable request of the Administrative Agent, information in reasonable detail as to the insurance so maintained. The Company shall deliver to the Administrative Agent endorsements (x) to all “All Risk” physical damage insurance policies on the Collateral of the Company and the Subsidiary Guarantors naming the Administrative Agent as lender loss payee, and (y) to all general liability and other liability policies of the Company and the Subsidiary Guarantors naming the Administrative Agent an additional insured or mortgagee (in the case of property insurance with respect to Collateral). In the event the Company or any of its Subsidiaries at any time or times hereafter shall fail to obtain or maintain any of the policies or insurance required herein or to pay any premium in whole or in part relating thereto, then the Administrative Agent, without waiving or releasing any obligations or resulting Default hereunder, may at any time or times thereafter (but shall be under no obligation to do so) obtain and maintain such policies of insurance and pay such premiums and take any other action with respect thereto which the Administrative Agent reasonably deems advisable. All sums so disbursed by the Administrative Agent shall constitute part of the Obligations, payable as provided in this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, such endorsements (and related insurance certificates) shall not be required to be delivered hereunder until the date that is ninety (90) days (or such later date as may be agreed upon by the Administrative Agent in its reasonable discretion) after the Effective Date.

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: The waiver by either Party of any breach of any term, covenant or condition contained in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition or of any subsequent breach of the same or of any other term, covenant or condition contained in this Agreement. No term, covenant or condition of this Agreement will be deemed to have been waived unless such waiver is in writing.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 278 Mich App at 235. D At the outset, we note that the prosecution urges us to hold that the existence of territorial jurisdiction under MCL 762.2 is a pure question of law to be decided by the trial court. We conclude that the trial court must decide as an initial matter of law whether a particular alleged act, consequence, or other condition, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have occurred within this state, would be legally sufficient to confer jurisdiction under MCL 762.2. However, w 994) (observing that, if placed in issue by the proofs, the issue of territorial jurisdiction “is properly submitted at trial” and that “[t]he State is required to prove territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt”); People v McLaughlin, 80 NY2d 466, 472; 591 NYS2d 966; 606 NE2d 1357 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Lane v State, 388 So 2d 1022, 1028-1029 (Fla, Options: A. holding that factors increasing a defendants sentence beyond the statutory maximum of the crime charged with the exception of prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt B. holding that territorial jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt C. holding that any fact that increases a sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury D. holding that facts that increase the maximum sentence a defendant faces must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt E. holding facts that increase the maximum penalty for a crime must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that territorial jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
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 parties hereto agree that irreparable damage would occur in the event any provision of this Agreement was not performed in accordance with the terms hereof and that any Investor (without being joined by any other Investor) shall be entitled to specific performance of the terms hereof, in addition to any other remedy at law or in equity. Any Investor shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees in any action brought to enforce this Agreement in which it is the prevailing party.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: period in Rule 32.2(c), Ala. R.Crim. P., as follows: “[T]he limitations provision of Rule 32.2(c) is an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar. “Although we today hold that the limitations provision in Rule 32.2(c) is not a jurisdictional bar, it is nonetheless written in mandatory terms. Rule 32.2(c) provides that ‘the court shall not entertain any petition for relief from a conviction or sentence’ that is not timely. In prior cases in which it concluded that equitable tolling is unavailable, the Court of Criminal Appeals based its holding on the mandatory ‘shall’ language found in Rule 32.2(c) and the fact that no Alabama court has ever held that there is an exception to the limitations period. See, e.g., Arthur v. State, 820 So.2d 886, 889-90 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). However, this Court has never held that Options: A. holding that oneyear limitations period set forth in 2255 is not a jurisdictional bar and is thus subject to equitable tolling B. holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel C. holding that there is no spousal exception to the statute D. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional E. holding that there is no exception to rule 322c and that the limitations period is jurisdictional

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that there is no exception to rule 322c and that the limitations period is jurisdictional
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: in the event of any third-party claim that the app or your possession and use of the app infringes that third party 's intellectual property rights , niantic will be solely responsible for the investigation , defense , settlement , and discharge of any such intellectual property infringement claim to the extent required by these terms .

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: In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Guarantee Agreement or in any other Loan Document should be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein and therein shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby (it being understood that the invalidity of a particular provision in a particular jurisdiction shall not in and of itself affect the validity of such provision in any other jurisdiction). The parties shall endeavor in good-faith negotiations to replace the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions with valid provisions the economic effect of which comes as close as possible to that of the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions.

assistant: Severability