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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No provision of this Agreement shall be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing duly executed by the parties hereto. No custom, act, payment, favor or indulgence shall grant any additional right to Executive or be deemed a waiver by Parent or the Company of any of Executive’s obligations hereunder or release Executive therefrom or impose any additional obligation upon Parent or the Company. No waiver by any party of any breach by the other party of any term or provision hereof shall be deemed to be an assent or waiver by any party to or of any succeeding breach of the same or any other term or provision. This Agreement is personal to and shall not be assignable by any party, but shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, beneficiaries, successors and assigns.

assistant: Amendments
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 her advertising efforts for ACVSMR, but provides no details regarding the number of people targeted or the frequency of distribution of these ads. See Lyons Aff. ¶ 17. Lyons also maintains a listing in The Bloodhorse Source, “a major advertising directory for the equine industry.” Id. at ¶ 16; Lyons Aff., Ex. C, Horse Racing and Breeding Information from The Blood-Horse, ECF No. 95-1. In addition, Lyons reports that “lectures, seminars, [and] speaking engagements” advertise her mark. Lyons Aff. ¶ 17. This sketched portrait does not depict the type of pervasive and continuous advertising scheme that is probative of secondary meaning. See Unleashed Doggie Day Care, LLC v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., No. 10-10742-DJC, 2011 WL 6812642, at *8 (D.Mass. Dec. 28, 2011) (Casper, J.) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a website is a potential Options: A. holding that small businesss purchase of a print advertisement and telephone book listing along with a reported 56851 spent on advertisements during a ten year period were insufficient to establish secondary meaning B. holding that being a guarantor along with making payments in forum state is an insufficient basis to invoke personal jurisdiction C. holding that black box labeled purchase orders was insufficient structure to perform the generate purchase orders function D. holding allegations that fraudulent statements were made during fourmonth period insufficient to satisfy rule 9b E. holding that exact same speech at issue in keimer the book cover flyleaf and introduction to the book which stated a fact made by the authors in the book itself was not commercial speech because it states a fact made by the authors in the text it is not about the book as a product

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that small businesss purchase of a print advertisement and telephone book listing along with a reported 56851 spent on advertisements during a ten year period were insufficient to establish secondary 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the [retroactive] amendments ... for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and ... leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1) (emphasis added); see United States v. McBride, 283 F.3d 612, 615 (3d Cir.2002) (“only the retroactive amendment is to be considered at a resentencing under § 3582”). Thus, in Barner’s case, the District Court was limited to ascertaining Barner’s Guidelines range had Amendment 706 been in place during his initial sentencing. The District Court lacked authority to reconsider its initial criminal history calculation or any other component of Barner’s initial sentence that was not affected by a retroactive amendment. Cf. United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 156 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the District Court did not err Options: A. holding that application of career offender enhancement falls within exception for prior convictions where facts are undisputed making it unnecessary for district court to engage in further fact finding about prior convictions B. holding that the district court lacked authority to revisit the application of the career offender enhancement in a 3582 motion because that enhancement was not affected by a retroactive amendment C. holding retroactive application D. holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines E. holding that the defendants substantial rights were not affected by a sentencing guidelines enhancement even in the absence of a specific finding by the district court because the evidence amply supported the enhancement

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court lacked authority to revisit the application of the career offender enhancement in a 3582 motion because that enhancement was not affected by a retroactive amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Area Transit Auth., 205 F.3d 428, 433 (D.C.Cir.2000). As discussed previously, Plaintiffs allegation regarding alleged retaliation in the removal of her partitions does not meet the prima facie requirements for retaliation because it did not constitute an adverse employment action—thereby failing the second prong of the prima facie test. See supra Section III(A)(l)(iii). However, Plaintiff cannot establish the third prong of the prima facie case—the “causal connection” requirement—with regard to her assertion that Mr. Columbia denied her a within-grade increase in 1995 based on retaliatory motives. To prove a causal connection, Plaintiff must make a “showing that the employer had knowledge of the employee’s protected activity, a Garrett v. Lujan, 799 F.Supp. 198, 202 (D.D.C.1992) (<HOLDING>); Townsend v. Washington Metro. Transit Auth., Options: A. holding that a lengthy delay of approximately a year between plaintiffs reports and her termination does not support an inference she was fired because of the protected activity B. holding that a three month interval between protected activity and adverse act is too long standing alone to establish an inference of retaliation C. holding that three to five months is a short enough time lapse between eeo activity and reprisal to establish a causal connection D. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation E. holding that almost a year between plaintiffs eeo activity and the adverse employment decision is too great a length of time to support an inference of reprisal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that almost a year between plaintiffs eeo activity and the adverse employment decision is too great a length of time to support an inference of reprisal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as disclosed in the SEC Documents or as set forth on Schedule 4.9 , there are no actions, suits, investigations, inquiries or proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company, any Subsidiary or any of their respective properties, nor has the Company received any written or oral notice of any such action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, which would have a Material Adverse Effect. No judgment, order, writ, injunction or decree or award has been issued by or, to the knowledge of the Company, requested of any court, arbitrator or governmental agency which would have a Material Adverse Effect. There has not been, and to the knowledge ofthe Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the SEC involving the Company, any Subsidiary or any current or former director or officer of the Company or any Subsidiary.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we are not liable or responsible for any consequences of your having read or been told about such advice or other materials as you assume full responsibility for your decisions and actions .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The 2016-A Lease is in full force and effect and not satisfied, subordinated or rescinded and no provision of the 2016-A Lease has been waived in any manner that causes or could cause such 2016-A Lease to not qualify with the other criteria set forth herein.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Mortgagor shall not be required to pay, discharge or remove any Imposition or any Lien so long as Mortgagor shall in good faith contest the same or the validity thereof by appropriate legal proceedings which shall operate to prevent the collection of the Lien or Imposition so contested and the sale of the Mortgaged Property, or any part thereof, to satisfy the same, provided that Mortgagor shall, prior to the date such Lien or Imposition is due and payable, have given such reasonable security as may be demanded by Mortgagee to insure such payments plus interest or penalties thereon, and prevent any sale or forfeiture of the Mortgaged Property by reason of such nonpayment. Any such contest shall be prosecuted with due diligence and Mortgagor shall promptly after final determination thereof pay the amount of any such Lien or Imposition so determined, together with all interest and penalties which may be payable in connection therewith. Notwithstanding these provisions Mortgagor shall (and if Mortgagor shall fail so to do, Mortgagee, may but shall not be required to) pay any such Lien or Imposition notwithstanding such contest if in the reasonable opinion of Mortgagee, the Mortgaged Property shall be in jeopardy or in danger of being forfeited or foreclosed.

assistant: Liens
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: W.Va. 844, 229 S.E.2d 732, 736 (1976), overruled, on other grounds by O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W.Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d 561 (2010). “It has long been recognized that an easement by necessity is appurtenant.... What this means in practice is that the right to an easement of necessity does not expire or attach itself to a particular owner....” William C. Haak Trust, 949 N.E.2d at 837. Given the appurtenant nature of a way of necessity, and that the duration of an easement of necessity is limited by that necessity, it is recognized that “a claim for an easement by necessity is not subject to a statute of limitations.” Carroll, 355 S.W.3d at 468; see also William C. Haak Trust, 949 N.E.2d at 837 (“[T]here is no statute of limitations on easements of necessity. ...”); Attaway, 707 S.W.2d at 303 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Lichty, 149 Cal.App.3d at Options: A. holding it is not appropriate to fix a limitations period on actions to establish easements by necessity because the right to access arises from an owners status as a landlocked owner and is of a continuing nature B. holding that because the necessity defense requires a defendant to turn himself in escape is a continuing offense C. holding for 1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises D. holding that it is not E. holding that a plaintiff has no absolute unconditional right of access to the courts and no constitutional right of access to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding it is not appropriate to fix a limitations period on actions to establish easements by necessity because the right to access arises from an owners status as a landlocked owner and is of a continuing nature
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: United States v. Quintero, 937 F.2d 95, 96-97 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Frierson, 945 F.2d 650, 654-55 (3d Cir.1991) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that he was deprived of the benefit of his bargain by the application of the relevant conduct guideline to a count dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1515, 117 L.Ed.2d 651 (1992); United States v. Williams, 880 F.2d 804, 805-06 (4th Cir.1989) (rejecting the defendant’s assertion that he was denied the benefit of his bargain); United States v. Rodriguez-Nuez, 919 F.2d 461, 464 (7th Cir.1990) (rejecting the contention that it was "fundamentally unfair" to apply § 1B1.3(a)(2) to a count dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain); United States v. Scroggins, 880 F.2d 1204, 1213-14 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1083, 110 S.Ct. 1816, Options: A. holding that the district court had discretion where plaintiff sought to amend a count that had been dismissed with prejudice B. holding that the notice of appeal filed after the district court entered judgment as to one defendant but before the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants would have become effective when those defendants were later dismissed C. holding that application of 1b13a2 to a dismissed count was not inequitable because the plea bargain did not impliedly preclude the district court from considering evidence of the conduct charged in the dismissed count and the defendant could have predicted that the court would aggregate the conduct D. holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim E. holding where there was no indication in the procedural history that the court had held that the five prior appeals dismissed for failure to prosecute were frivolous that the dismissals did not count as strikes under 1915g

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that application of 1b13a2 to a dismissed count was not inequitable because the plea bargain did not impliedly preclude the district court from considering evidence of the conduct charged in the dismissed count and the defendant could have predicted that the court would aggregate the conduct
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 49, at *41; Riggs II, 163 F.3d at 1369; Riggs III, 2001 WL 47274, at 17-18, 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 20, at *64-66. Second, the root principles at work here — the principle that courts must be consistent with one another and the principle that governmental entities may in some circumstances be treated as private when taking on a private role or function— have a venerable lineage. See Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 611, 614, 112 S.Ct. 2160, 119 L.Ed.2d 394 (1992) (putting a distinction between a government’s exercises of uniquely sovereign power and ordinary private power at the heart of foreign sovereign immunity); Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 695, 96 S.Ct. 1854, 48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976) (plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>); Bank of the U.S. v. Planters’ Bank of Co., 22 Options: A. recognizing the substantial body of case law discussing distinction between preliminary and postliminary activities on the one hand and principle activities of employment on the other B. recognizing a traditional distinction between the public and governmental acts of sovereign states on the one hand and their private and commercial acts on the other C. holding not only does cincinnatis categorical ban on commercial newsracks place too much importance on the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech but in this case the distinction bears no relationship whatsoever to the particular interests that the city has asserted D. recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel E. recognizing the liens on the one hand and representing that the tax claim had been released on the other

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing a traditional distinction between the public and governmental acts of sovereign states on the one hand and their private and commercial acts on the other
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: Subject to the terms of this Agreement, at the Closing, the Company hereby agrees to issue and sell to the Purchaser, and the Purchaser hereby agrees, to purchase from the Company, 5,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock, together with the associated Warrants, free and clear of all Encumbrances.

assistant: Sales
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: disc. review denied, 357 N.C. 64, 579 S.E.2d 396, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 928, 124 S. Ct. 338, 157 L. Ed. 2d 231 (2003). Therefor 32 L. Ed. 2d 845 (1995). None of the foregoing cases, however, dealt with a failure of subject matter jurisdiction. If this were a case of first impression with us, we might be inclined to agree with the State that the defendant should not be allowed to obtain relief from a judgment entered upon an improper offense which his own counsel requested. It seems to us that affording a defendant relief under such circumstances might encourage the bad faith trial tactic of urging the submission of improper lesser offenses at trial in the hopes of obtaining appellate relief predicated on invited error. See Shepherd v. State, 459 S.E.2d 608, 609 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (<HOLDING>); Kemp v. State, 647 N.E.2d 1143, 1145-46 (Ind. Options: A. holding that aggravated battery is a lesser included offense of manslaughter B. holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same C. holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery D. holding that the defendant could be convicted of sexual battery a lesser crime not included in the offense for which he was indicted where the defendant requested that sexual battery be submitted to the jury E. holding that the defendant who was indicted for first degree rape and convicted of sexual battery had no remedy on appeal when he requested that the erroneous lesser nonincluded charge be submitted to the jury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the defendant could be convicted of sexual battery a lesser crime not included in the offense for which he was indicted where the defendant requested that sexual battery be submitted to the jury
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 (and any Dispute arising out of or related hereto or to the transactions contemplated hereby or to the inducement of any Party to enter herein, whether for breach of contract, tortious conduct or otherwise and whether predicated on common law, statute or otherwise) shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the Laws of the State of Delaware, irrespective of the choice of laws principles of the State of Delaware, including all matters of validity, construction, effect, enforceability, performance and remedies.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Cl purchased the drugs directly from Otis Walker and, thus, that they were never in Mr. Little’s actual possession. It is equally clear that Mr. Little was forced to wait on Otis Walker’s porch as Walker conducted the transaction with the Cl inside. To prove constructive possession, “the government must produce evidence showing ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband itself or the [location] in which contraband is concealed.” Wright, 392 F.3d at 1273 (quotation marks and alterations omitted). Walker’s demand that Mr. Little stay outside, and Little’s acquiescence to that demand, defeats any claim that Little exercised ownership, dominion, or control over these drugs, or the location where they were concealed. Cf. United States v. Clavis, 956 F.2d 1079, 1089 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The government’s failure to prove that Mr. Options: A. holding that evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy where the evidence did not show that individuals who sold drugs to the defendant knew that the drugs were meant to be resold B. holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop C. holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs D. holding that evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession where the defendant was in jail at the time the drugs were seized from his residence E. holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession where the defendant was in jail at the time the drugs were seized from his residence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive hereby agrees that Executive will not directly or indirectly disparage the Company or disseminate, or cause or permit others to disseminate negative statements regarding Company or any other Executive, officer, director or agent of Company. Company hereby agrees that Company will not directly or indirectly disparage the Executive or disseminate, or cause or permit others to disseminate negative statements regarding Executive. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither Executive nor Company is hereby barred or restricted from exercising any right of speech or expression protected by applicable federal, state or local law.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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 contract arising out of acceptance of this Subscription Agreement by the Corporation shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein. The parties irrevocably attorn to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Signatures transmitted electronically shall be accepted as originals for all purposes of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 174 F.3d at 748. Connie argues, however, that jeopardy attached in her case because George had already been tried at the time the indictment against her had been dismissed. Connie’s argument is misplaced, as she cannot assert George’s jeopardy rights. Connie’s trial had been severed from George’s and had not yet begun when the original indictment was dismissed and the superseding indictment filed. Accordingly, jeopardy did not attach to the charges against Connie. Finally, Connie asserts that the illegality of the original indictment somehow ert. denied, 527 U.S. 1024, 119 S.Ct. 2371, 144 L.Ed.2d 775 (1999). On appeal, George concedes that the panel decision in Singleton has been overruled and acknowledges this court’s decision in United States v. Ware, 161 F.3d 414, 419 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1045, 119 S.Ct. 1348, Options: A. holding that the fact that a prosecutor afforded favorable treatment to a government witness standing alone does not establish the existence of an underlying promise of leniency in exchange for testimony B. holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government C. holding that title ii does not apply to the states D. holding that sovereign immunity does not bar extinguishment of united states junior lien in proceeding in which united states was not a party E. holding that 201c which penalizes an individual for giving anything of value in exchange for testimony does not apply to the united states government

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 201c which penalizes an individual for giving anything of value in exchange for testimony does not apply to the united states government
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: for tinder plus subscribers residing in arizona , california , connecticut , illinois , iowa , minnesota , new york , north carolina , ohio and wisconsin , the terms below apply :

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: 44, 121 S.Ct. 2038 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Lower courts uniformly agree that, because of the third-party doctrine, computer users lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their IP addresses, subscriber information, and similar descriptive information they disclose to third parties (such as ISPs) to facilitate Internet service. See, e.g., U.S. v. Carpenter, 819 F.3d 880, 887 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted) (“The Fourth Amendment protects the content of the modern-day letter, the email. But courts have not (yet, at least) extended those protections to the internet analogue to envelope markings, namely the metadata used to route internet communications, like sender and recipient addresses on an email, or IP addresses.”); U.S. v. Weast, 811 F.3d 743, 748 (5th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Beckett, 369 Fed.Appx. 52, 56 (11th Options: A. holding that the fourth amendment does not protect a bahamian citizen with no substantial connections to the us B. holding that fourth amendment claims are not cognizable on habeas review because the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not relate to the accuracy of the factfinding process C. holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president D. holding that the fourth amendment does not protect ip addresses or peertopeer shared files E. holding first amendment does not protect nonexpressive conduct

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the fourth amendment does not protect ip addresses or peertopeer shared files
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: effective september 26 , 2016 for players who do not play any zynga game for the first time between july 26 , 2016 and september 26 , 2016 .

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: Except with respect to the material terms and conditions of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents, the Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided any of the Purchasers or their agents or counsel with any information that it believes constitutes or might constitute material, non-public information. The Company understands and confirms that the Purchasers will rely on the foregoing representation in effecting transactions in securities of the Company. This Agreement, including the Disclosure Schedules to this Agreement, is true and correct in all material respects and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that no Purchaser makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 3.2 hereof.

assistant: Disclosures
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: CURIAM. Affirmed. See Stanley v. State, 947 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>); Parrish v. State, 780 So.2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA Options: A. holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation B. holding for crimes committed on or after october 1 1988 the sentencing guidelines do not apply to habitual offender sentences C. holding that predicate crimes for which defendant received probation and adjudication could be considered for purposes of habitual offender enhancement D. holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony E. holding that a defendant sentenced as an habitual offender who later successfully challenges one of his predicate offenses may have his habitual offender status and sentencing enhancement vacated through postconviction relief or a motion to correct erroneous sentence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding for crimes committed on or after october 1 1988 the sentencing guidelines do not apply to habitual offender sentences
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: him, claiming his termination was without just cause, i.e., in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. Under the Railway Labor Act ("RLA”), American’s decision to terminate Perry qualifies as a "minor dispute” over which the Adjustment Board has exclusive jurisdiction. See 45 U.S.C. § 151 (defining "minor dispute” as disputes "growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.”). Under the RLA, minor disputes must be submitted to the Adjustment Board for binding arbitration; judicial review of these decisions is only available in certain circumstances, none of which is present here. See id.; Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 253, 114 S.Ct. 2239, 129 L.Ed.2d 203 (1994) (<HOLDING>); United Transp. Union v. South Carolina Public Options: A. holding the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over condemnation proceedings B. recognizing that the attorney general has vested immigration judges with exclusive jurisdiction over applications for adjustment of status in cases of deportation or removal C. holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive D. holding that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over securities act class actions E. holding that adjustment boards have exclusive jurisdiction over minor disputes under rla

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that adjustment boards have exclusive jurisdiction over minor disputes under rla
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996)). We find that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict that Smith possessed the firearms. Employees of Cumberland Pawn Shop identified Smith as the person to whom they sold the firearms, and the employees testified that they gave him the firearms at the time of sale. The driver’s licenses used in connection with the sales were found at Smit ny factual findings regarding the prior convictions, and he does not dispute the factual basis for the district court’s conclusions that he was an armed career criminal. Accordingly, Smith’s assertion that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment is without merit. See United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 523 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). To the extent that Smith contests his Options: A. holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing as career offender B. holding that application of career offender enhancement falls within exception for prior convictions where facts are undisputed making it unnecessary for district court to engage in further fact finding about prior convictions C. holding that where defendant did not dispute any of the facts supporting the career offender status in district court there is no constitutional violation in relying on defendants prior convictions D. holding that the career offender guideline could not directly apply when there was an unsentenced conviction but allowing the district court on remand to consider departing from the guidelines in order to sentence a defendant whose conduct delayed his convictions as if the career offender provision applied E. holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where defendant did not dispute any of the facts supporting the career offender status in district court there is no constitutional violation in relying on defendants prior convictions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Credit Parties (a) is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its organization (to the extent applicable under such laws), (b) has the requisite power and authority and the legal right to own and operate all its property, to lease the property it operates as lessee and to conduct the business in which it is currently engaged, (c) is duly qualified to conduct business and in good standing (to the extent applicable) under the laws of (i) the jurisdiction of its organization, (ii) the jurisdiction where its chief executive office is located and (iii) each other jurisdiction where its ownership, lease or operation of property or the conduct of its business requires such qualification except to the extent that the failure to so qualify or be in good standing could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect on the business or operations of the Credit Parties and their Subsidiaries in such jurisdiction and (d) is in compliance with all Requirements of Law, government permits and government licenses except to the extent that the failure to comply therewith could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall within one (1) Trading Days immediately following the date hereof file a Current Report on Form 8-K, including the Exchange Documents as exhibits thereto, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”). The Company and the Holder shall consult with each other in issuing any other press releases with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby, and neither the Company nor the Holder shall issue any such press release nor otherwise make any such public statement without the prior consent of the Company, with respect to any press release of the Holder, or without the prior consent of the Holder, with respect to any press release of the Company, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld or delayed, except if such disclosure is required by law, in which case the disclosing party shall promptly provide the other party with prior notice of such public statement or communication. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall not publicly disclose the name of the Holder, or include the name of the Holder in any filing with the Commission or any regulatory agency or Trading Market, without the prior written consent of the Holder, except (a) as required by federal securities law in connection with the filing of final Exchange Documents (including signature pages thereto) with the Commission and (b) to the extent such disclosure is required by law or Trading Market regulations, in which case the Company shall provide the Holder with prior notice of such disclosure permitted under this Section 6(c).

assistant: Publicity
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: at military dependent's on-base home; the defendant phoned his mother and told her to dispose of a bag in the attic of her off-base home; she asked a friend to do it, but the friend turned the rifle over to authorities); United States v. Roberts, 779 F.2d at 568 (noting that "the clear costs of applying an exclusionary rule are not countervailed by any discernible benefits” especially where the unauthorized use of Navy equipment in violation of the PCA was “unintentional and in good faith"); United States v. Wolffs, 594 F.2d 77 (5th Cir.1979) (refusing to consider whether CID investigators' act of disarming and detaining defendants violated PCA because application of exclusionary rule not warranted under Walden, supra ); United States v. Rasheed, 802 F.Supp. 312, 324 (D.Haw.1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Danko, 219 Kan. 490, 548 P.2d 819 Options: A. holding that there was no violation in a joint navycoast guard drug interdiction operation on the high seas and inferring in dicta that there is now no such need to deter future violations of 10 usc 375 based on the absence of any ninth circuit case applying the exclusionary rule to such violations B. recognizing that there is dicta and then there is dicta and then there is supreme court dicta C. holding that a district courts discretion is not unbridled and that it must weigh finding of violation against factors indicating reasonable likelihood that violations will not recur such as intent to comply extraordinary efforts to prevent recurrence absence of repetitive violations and absence of bad faith D. holding that there is no private right of action against a state governmental entity for violations of the texas constitution E. holding that the district court erred in finding violations that were not alleged specifically in the plaintiffs notice letter and no penalties could be imposed for those violations

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that there was no violation in a joint navycoast guard drug interdiction operation on the high seas and inferring in dicta that there is now no such need to deter future violations of 10 usc 375 based on the absence of any ninth circuit case applying the exclusionary rule to such violations
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 Originator shall pay to Transferee promptly on demand all reasonable costs and out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the preparation, execution, delivery and administration of this Agreement, the transactions contemplated hereby and the other documents to be delivered hereunder, or any amendment or modification hereto or thereto. Each Originator shall pay to Transferee promptly on demand any and all reasonable costs and expenses of Transferee, if any, including reasonable counsel fees and expenses in connection with the enforcement of this Agreement and the other documents delivered hereunder and in connection with any restructuring or workout of this Agreement or such documents, or the administration of this Agreement following a Termination Event.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any dispute regarding the interpretation of this Agreement shall be submitted by Optionee or by the Company forthwith to the Committee, which shall review such dispute at its next regular meeting. The resolution of such a dispute by the Committee shall be final and binding on the Company and on Optionee.

assistant: Interpretations
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: Engage in any material line of business other than those lines of business conducted by Borrower and its Subsidiaries on the date hereof and any businesses reasonably related, complementary or incidental thereto or reasonable extensions thereof; permit or suffer any Change in Control. Borrower will not, without prior written notice, change its jurisdiction of formation.

assistant: Change In Control
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: other than payees named in the statute, see the following post-BAPCPA decisions: In re Johnson, 397 B.R. 289, 296 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.2008)(stating that debtor’s obligation to pay bank on second deed of trust obligation was nondischargeable debt owed to former spouse because if debtor failed to pay and former spouse paid, former spouse could then recover payment amount from debtor under hold harmless agreement); In re Poole, 383 B.R. at 313 (stating in dicta that debts owed to third parties that are in the nature of support may still be domestic support obligations if enforceable and recoverable by the spouse; however, the debt at issue was a property settlement obligation and not support debt). See also Kassicieh v. Battisti (In re Kassicieh), 425 B.R. 467, 476-77 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2010)(<HOLDING>)(citing Levin v. Greco, 415 B.R. 663, 666-67 Options: A. holding that a creditor objecting to the dischargeability of a debt under 523a must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence B. holding that debts for a guardian ad litem and a psychologist were nondischargeable under 523a5 because the emphasis is to be placed on the determination of whether a debt is in the nature of support rather than on the identity of the payee C. holding that the party challenging the dischargeability of a debt bears the burden of proving the debt nondischargeable by a preponderance of the evidence D. recognizing that several postbapcpa decisions have continued to hold that in analyzing the dischargeability of debts payable to a third party it is the nature of the debt rather than the identity of the creditor that controls E. holding that the code excepts from discharge debts resulting from agreements by the debtor to hold the debtors spouse harmless on joint debts to the extent those debts are in the nature of alimony maintenance or support

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that several postbapcpa decisions have continued to hold that in analyzing the dischargeability of debts payable to a third party it is the nature of the debt rather than the identity of the creditor that controls