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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH GUARANTOR, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT FOR ITSELF AND THE LENDERS BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS GUARANTY, HEREBY WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTION OR CLAIM ARISING OUT OF ANY DISPUTE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS GUARANTY, ANY RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER OR THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OF SUCH RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS. Except as prohibited by law, each Guarantor hereby waives any right which it may have to claim or recover in any litigation referred to in the preceding sentence any special, exemplary, punitive or consequential damages or any damages other than, or in addition to, actual damages. Each Guarantor (i) certifies that neither the Administrative Agent or any Lender nor any representative, agent or attorney of the Administrative Agent or any Lender has represented, expressly or otherwise, that the Administrative Agent or any Lender would not, in the event of litigation, seek to enforce the foregoing waivers and (ii) acknowledges that, in entering into the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents to which the Administrative Agent or any Lender is a party, the Administrative Agent and the Lenders are relying upon, among other things, the waivers and certifications contained in this §14.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “failed to show by the record how the citation [in the advertisement] to page 3 rather than page 2 of the deed hook would chill the sale and cause the property to be bid at less than its fair market value ...”); Oates, 172 Ga. App. at 179 (2) (a) (confirming foreclosure despite error in advertisement listing the incorrect plat book because of evidence that it caused “no difficulty in locating the property using the description in the legal advertisement”). 15 Donalson, 177 Ga. at 91 (1). 16 See OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (a), which, in pertinent part, provides: to the property address or to such other address as the debtor may designate by written notice to the secured creditor. 17 See OCGA § 44-14-162.2 (b). 18 See Wright v. Barnett Mortgage Co., 226 Ga. App. 94, 96 (2) (485 SE2d 583) (1997) (<HOLDING>). 19 To the extent that Molina-Salas asserted a Options: A. recognizing cause of action for products liability in the absence of privity of contract in light of the foreseeable risk of harm caused by defective automobiles B. holding notice of balance due satisfies notice and demand requirements C. holding that notice of foreclosure that failed to provide a reinstatement balance was not defective in the absence of harm caused by the omission D. holding that debtors allegation that mortgage holder failed to provide him with the statutorily required notice of foreclosure was sufficient to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure E. holding that omission was not plain error

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that notice of foreclosure that failed to provide a reinstatement balance was not defective in the absence of harm caused by the omission
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 OBLIGOR IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT COMMENCE ANY ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION, WHETHER IN LAW OR EQUITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR IN TORT OR OTHERWISE, AGAINST THE PURCHASERS OR ANY RELATED PARTY OF THE PURCHASERS IN ANY WAY RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER BOND DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING HERETO OR THERETO, IN ANY FORUM OTHER THAN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SITTING IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURTS AND AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH NEW YORK STATE COURT OR, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN SUCH FEDERAL COURT. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AGREES THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER BOND DOCUMENT SHALL AFFECT ANY RIGHT THAT THE PURCHASERS MAY OTHERWISE HAVE TO BRING ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER BOND DOCUMENT AGAINST THE OBLIGOR OR ITS PROPERTIES IN THE COURTS OF ANY JURISDICTION.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 384 U.S. 264 86 S.Ct. 1415 16 L.Ed.2d 521 William Hoyet REDMOND and Dorothy Lucille Redmondv.UNITED STATES. No. 1056. May 23, 1966. John Jay Hooker, Jr., for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, for the United States. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for certiorari is granted. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction of petitioners, husband and wife, under an information charging them with violating the federal obscenity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1461 (1964 ed.), by having mailed undeveloped films of each other posing in the nude to an out-of-state firm for developing, and having received through the mails the developed negatives and a print of each. 2 In response to the certiorari petition, the Solicitor General has filed a motion requesting that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit be vacated and the cause remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the information. The ground of the motion is that 'the initiation of the instant prosecution was not in accord with policies which had previously been formulated within the Department (of Justice) for the guidance of United States Attorneys.' The policies referred to are set forth in a memorandum to United States Attorneys, dated August 31, 1964. The memorandum states, in pertinent part, that prosecution for mailing private correspondence which is allegedly obscene 'should be the exception confined to those cases involving repeated offenders or other circumstances which may fairly be characterized as aggravated.' The Solicitor General states that there are no such exceptional circumstances warranting a prosecution of petitioners: 'They were not repeated offenders. They had no record of involvement with obscene materials or sex-related offenses and no apparent opportunity for close association with young people. No other aggravating circumstance appears to be present.' 3 In consideration of the premises and upon an independent examination of the record filed in this Court, the motion is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly vacated, the cause is remanded to the District Court, and that court is directed to dismiss the information. See Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 80 S.Ct. 450, 4 L.Ed.2d 490. It is so ordered. 4 Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated and cause remanded. 5 Mr. Justice STEWART, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concur, would reverse this conviction, not because it violates the policy of the Justice Department, but because it violates the Constitution.

assistant: 3
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for the vindication of rights under a federal statute which contains its own administrative remedies, exhaustion of those remedies, if they are adequate, is required.” Although it would appear to be a more efficient allocation of resources if there was a FERPA exhaustion requirement, this court can not infer such a requirement from the statute. As the Ryans court recognized, and as Patsy specifically holds {supra page 1256), the touchstone of a federal statutory exhaustion requirement is Congressional intent. 542 F.Supp. at 850. See also Alacare v. Baggiano, 785 F.2d 963, 967 (11th Cir.1986) (evidence of Congressional intent to impose exhaustion requirement must be clear); Wright v. Roanoke Redev. & Housing Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 423-29, 107 S.Ct. 766, 770-73, 93 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Although FERPA directs the establishment of Options: A. holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act B. holding that we have consistently held that a private cause of action will not be found where the legislature has expressly provided for enforcement of a statute C. holding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by congress courts may not create a cause of action absent statutory intent D. holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent E. holding that section 1983based private cause of action under federal statute will be allowed notwithstanding welldeveloped administrative agency enforcement mechanism where no evidence of congressional intent to provide otherwise

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that section 1983based private cause of action under federal statute will be allowed notwithstanding welldeveloped administrative agency enforcement mechanism where no evidence of congressional intent to provide otherwise
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: his plea to count 35 thus fails. IV. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the factual resumes submitted in support of Hildenbrand’s and Stone’s guilty pleas are sufficient to sustain their convictions. The remaining issues appellants raise are related to their sentences. Because the defendants waived their right to appeal their sentences, we DISMISS THE APPEAL of their sentences, and AFFIRM their convictions. 1 . Count 36 alleged forfeiture of assets. 2 . See also our discussion of the similar term "benefit” infra under § 666 relating to Stone’s conviction. 3 . That the benefit is intended ultimately to pass to the low-to-moderate-income purchaser of the program homes does not change the result. See Fischer v. United States, 529 U.S. 667, 677, 120 S.Ct. 1780, 146 L.Ed.2d 707 (2000) Options: A. recognizing that there may be multiple beneficiaries of federal programs B. holding that an agreement may provide elements of a plan by setting out rules under which beneficiaries will be entitled to care C. holding that trust beneficiaries have no authority to maintain an action as third party beneficiaries of contracts between the trustee and agents of the trustee concerning the internal affairs of the trust D. holding that beneficiaries could not sue attorneys of the trust for legal malpractice because beneficiaries are not direct recipients of the attorneys services E. recognizing noncontracting parties rights as thirdparty beneficiaries of an insurance contract

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that there may be multiple beneficiaries of federal programs
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will (a) maintain in effect and enforce policies and procedures designed to promote and endeavor to achieve compliance by the Borrower, its Subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents with all Anti-Corruption Laws, Anti-Money Laundering Laws and applicable Sanctions, (b) notify the Administrative Agent and each Lender that previously received a Beneficial Ownership Certification of any change in the information provided in the Beneficial Ownership Certification that would result in a change to the list of beneficial owners identified therein and (c) promptly upon the reasonable request of the Administrative Agent or any Lender, provide the Administrative Agent or such Lender, as the case may be, any information or documentation requested by it for purposes of complying with the Beneficial Ownership Regulation.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement (including the exhibits hereto) constitute the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: So.2d 219, 221 (Fla.1991), suffered from bipolar affective disorder, manic type with paranoid features, among other mental problems. To summarize, as found by the trial court, this case involves one of the most serious aggravators and less than substantial mitigation. It is not this Court’s function to reweigh these aggravating and mitigation circumstances. See Merck, 975 So.2d at 1065. The death sentence here is proportionate when compared to other death penalty cases. See, e.g., Butler, 842 So.2d 817; LaMarca, 785 So.2d 1209. Additionally, although the majority did not address it, Ballard’s claim that his death sentence is unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), is without merit. See Porter v. Crosby, 840 So.2d 981, 986 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>); Butler v. State, 842 So.2d at 834 (upholding Options: A. recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum B. holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesserincluded offense of firstdegree murder C. holding the death sentence proportional for the firstdegree murder conviction where only the hac aggravator was found D. holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant according to the states sentencing guidelines E. holding in asapplied challenge that death is the statutory maximum sentence for firstdegree murder

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in asapplied challenge that death is the statutory maximum sentence for firstdegree murder
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date and shall expire on March 18, 2017; provided, however, that the expiration of this Agreement shall not affect the Employee’s rights to receive any payments or benefits otherwise due as a result of a Separation from Service occurring prior to the expiration of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Party, by its execution hereof, (i) hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts sitting in the State of Delaware for the purpose of any action, claim, cause of action or suit (in contract, tort or otherwise), inquiry, proceeding or investigation arising out of or based upon this Agreement or relating to the subject matter hereof, (ii) hereby waives to the extent not prohibited by applicable law, and agrees not to assert, and agrees not to allow any of its subsidiaries to assert, by way of motion, as a defense or otherwise, in any such action, any claim that it is not subject personally to the jurisdiction of the above-named courts, that its property is exempt or immune from attachment or execution, that any such proceeding brought in one of the above-named courts is improper, or that this Agreement or the subject matter hereof or thereof may not be enforced in or by such court and (iii) hereby agrees not to commence or maintain any action, claim, cause of action or suit (in contract, tort or otherwise), inquiry, proceeding or investigation arising out of or based upon this Agreement or relating to the subject matter hereof or thereof other than before one of the above-named courts nor to make any motion or take any other action seeking or intending to cause the transfer or removal of any such action, claim, cause of action or suit (in contract, tort or otherwise), inquiry, proceeding or investigation to any court other than one of the above-named courts whether on the grounds of inconvenient forum or otherwise. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent that any Party is or becomes a party in any litigation in connection with which it may assert indemnification rights set forth in this Agreement, the court in which such litigation is being heard shall be deemed to be included in clause (i) above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Party may commence and maintain an action to enforce a judgment of any of the above-named courts in any court of competent jurisdiction. Each Party hereby consents to service of process in any such proceeding in any manner permitted by Delaware law, and agrees that service of process by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, at its address specified pursuant to Section 4.2 hereof is reasonably calculated to give actual notice.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for the security interest granted to the Administrative Agent for the ratable benefit of the Secured Parties pursuant to this Agreement and the other Liens permitted to exist on the Collateral under the Credit Agreement, such Grantor owns each item of the Collateral free and clear of any and all Liens. No effective financing statement or other similar public filing with respect to all or any part of the Collateral is on file or of record in any relevant public office, except such as have been filed in favor of the Administrative Agent pursuant to this Agreement or as are permitted by the Credit Agreement and those filed in connection with the Existing Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we are not liable for any changes or problems out of our control , for example changes or problems caused by like natural disasters , war , terrorism , riots , embargoes , acts of civil or military authorities , fire , floods , accidents , network infrastructure failures , strikes , or shortages of transportation facilities , fuel , energy , labor or materials .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you understand that crowdtangle 's service is built on api 's provided by third-party services , including facebook , twitter , instagram and others , and from time-to-time , there are adverse events with respect to those apis that are no fault of crowdtangle 's .

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: age, race and sex discrimination are completely unrelated to Reno’s allegations that she was harassed by Moorer, that Moorer “frequently makes rude, disparaging remarks about women and twists every innocent comment into one with sexual over tones” and that Moorer “approached Ms. Reno from behind and intentionally pressed himself against her with his lower body while she is sitting at her desk.” (P.’s Sec. Am. Compl., Instr. No. 18 at 6). Moorer was not involved in any of Metro’s decisions not to promote Reno nor is it reasonable to assume that his allegedly unlawful conduct would have been uncovered during the course of an EEOC investigation aimed at discovering whether Reno had been improperly denied certain promotions. See Torriero v. Olin Corp., 684 F.Supp. 1165, 1170 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, Reno argues that the claim of Options: A. holding that plaintiffs eeoc charge alleging sex discrimination did not encompass claim of sexual harassment subsequently asserted in title vii action in federal court because the facts underlying sexual harassment claim could not be inferred from the factual assertions made in the eeoc charge nor would they have been uncovered absent specific allegations to indicate such a cause of action existed B. holding that a charge that alleged discrimination on the basis of sex did not support a complaint for hostile environment sexual harassment C. holding that an original eeoc charge is sufficient to support a civil suit under the act for any discrimination developed in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge provided such discrimination was included in the reasonable cause determination of the eeoc D. holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination E. holding that a title vii cause of action is limited to those discrimination allegations in the complaint that have been under the scrutiny of a formal eeoc complaint

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiffs eeoc charge alleging sex discrimination did not encompass claim of sexual harassment subsequently asserted in title vii action in federal court because the facts underlying sexual harassment claim could not be inferred from the factual assertions made in the eeoc charge nor would they have been uncovered absent specific allegations to indicate such a cause of action existed
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 notices, requests, demands and other communications provided for by this Agreement shall be sufficient if in writing and delivered in person or sent by registered or certified mail, postage paid, to the Employee at the last address the Employee has filed in writing with the Employers or, in the case of the Employers, at its main office, attention of the Chairman of the Board.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: No. 73 at page 30; see also CompL, Attach, of Photograph, ECF No. 1 at 19; Photographs, ECF No. 68-13 at 11-14. Properly viewing the facts in the light depicted by the photographs, see PL’s Resp. SMF, ECF No. 73 ¶ 30 (“The [pjhoto of the item speaks for itself.”); cf. Armbruster v. Frost, 962 F.Supp.2d 105, 110 (D.D.C. 2013) (explaining that where a court has the benefit of video evidence, it should view the facts in the light depicted by the videotape when deciding summary judgment motions), it is undisputed that there was a monkey-like, ape-like, or Bigfoot-like action figure tightly wrapped — as if mummified — by a thin white cord or rope from the action figure’s ankles to its chest, with additional strands wrapped around the action figure’s neck and arm D.C. 2013) (Sullivan, J.) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 154 Options: A. holding that a plaintiff stated a claim of hostile work environment where the court accepted as true the allegation that a monkey doll was hung by its neck in a nooselike fashion in a public work area of an office B. holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive C. holding that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was a racially hostile work environment when plaintiff was subjected to several statements involving racial epithets and a nude black doll was hung from a noose in his locker D. recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context E. recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a plaintiff stated a claim of hostile work environment where the court accepted as true the allegation that a monkey doll was hung by its neck in a nooselike fashion in a public work area of an office
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: Pledgor shall maintain, at its principal office, and, upon reasonable request, make available to Agent during normal business hours, the originals, or copies in any case where the originals have been delivered to Agent of the instruments, documents, policies and agreements constituting the Collateral (to the extent not held by Agent) and related documents and instruments, and all files, surveys, certificates, correspondence, appraisals, computer programs, tapes, discs, cards, accounting records and other information and data relating to the Collateral.

assistant: Records
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 Stockholder agrees that it will, and will direct its designated representatives to, keep confidential and not disclose any Confidential Information; provided, however , that such Stockholder and its designated representatives may disclose Confidential Information to the other Stockholders, to the Stockholder Designees and to (a) its attorneys, accountants, consultants, insurers and other advisors in connection with such Stockholder’s investment in the Company, (b) any Person, including a prospective purchaser of Common Stock, as long as such Person has agreed to maintain the confidentiality of such Confidential Information, (c) any of such Stockholder’s or its respective Affiliates’ partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers, employees or agents in the ordinary course of business (the Persons referenced in clauses (a), (b) and (c), a Stockholder’s “designated representatives”) or (d) as the Company may otherwise consent in writing; provided, further, however , that each Stockholder agrees to be responsible for any breaches of this Section 3.4 by such Stockholder’s designated representatives.

assistant: Confidentiality
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, demands and other communications hereunder shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.1 of the Purchase Agreement to Mortgagor and to Mortgagee as specified therein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to support the manifest imbalance factor included the traditional segregated job category requirement in their statement of the test. See Johnson, 480 U.S. at 631, 107 S.Ct. 1442; Weber, 443 U.S. at 204, 99 S.Ct. 2721; Higgins v. City of Vallejo, 823 F.2d 351, 356 (9th Cir.1987). Rudebusch gives no indication that it intentionally excluded this aspect of the requirement, and the defendant did not argue that this requirement had no 5, 837 (9th Cir.1996) (discussing an affirmative action program at the Department of Labor and stating that the test of its validity is an unmodified Title VII standard). Indeed, we have also ruled in multiple Title VII cases involving affirmative action practices at educational institutions, and we have never even suggested that . 2804, 37 L.Ed.2d 723 (1973) (<HOLDING>); see also Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. Options: A. holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment B. holding ijnvidious private discrimination may be characterized as a form of exercising freedom of association protected by the first amendment but it has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections C. holding that it is clearly established that retaliation against private citizens for exercising their first amendment rights is actionable D. holding that dating is a type of association protected by the first amendment E. holding that a nocontact order did not violate the right to freedom of association

assistant: The best answer is B. holding ijnvidious private discrimination may be characterized as a form of exercising freedom of association protected by the first amendment but it has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections
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: third was perceived deficiencies in Gherman’s documentary evidence in support of her application. None of these bases can support the finding. The IJ relied on three particular “inconsistencies and lack of detail” with respect to Gherman’s Pentecostal faith: (1) her appearance; (2) the propriety of singing and dancing in the Pentecostal church; and (3) particular details of the Pentecostal faith. Assuming, arguendo, that there is some contradiction between Gherman’s profession to be a devout Pentecostal and her attire, she offered the plausible explanation that her particular church is no longer as strict about such matters. The IJ failed to address this explanation or to explain how the government’s evidence could rebut it. Cf. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 1139, 1143-44 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). “Because an adverse credibility finding is Options: A. holding that the ij may not rely on a factually unsupported assertion in a state department report to deem an applicant not credible B. holding that an ij may not use general information contained in a state department report to discredit specific testimony regarding an applicants personal experience C. holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies D. holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible E. holding that an ij failed to make explicit credibility finding when he made passing remark that he disbelieved applicants testimony

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an ij may not use general information contained in a state department report to discredit specific testimony regarding an applicants personal experience
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: Detainer In his next claim, Appellant argues that the Board committed an abuse of its discretion by inquiring into the status of an INS detainer issued against Appellant because, according to Appellant, the Board has consistently used the absence of an updated status report as an arbitrary reason to deny parole. As noted above, however, a majority of this Court specifically held in Coady that “mandamus will not lie where the substance of the Board’s discretionary action is the subject of the challenge.” 770 A.2d at 290. See County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 360, 490 A.2d 402 (1985) (“Where the action sought to be compelled is discretionary, mandamus will not lie to control that discretionary act”); Pa. Dental Ass’n v. Com. Ins. Dept., 512 Pa. 217, 516 A.2d 647, 652 (1986) (<HOLDING>). As noted previously, while Appellant’s first Options: A. holding that it may not B. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion C. holding that while a court may direct that discretion be exercised it may not specify how that discretion is to be exercised nor require the performance of a particular discretionary act D. holding that peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner E. holding that where the statute in question required that the measure of fair market value shall be as determined by the secretary the court cannot substitute its own discretion for properly exercised administrative discretion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that while a court may direct that discretion be exercised it may not specify how that discretion is to be exercised nor require the performance of a particular discretionary act
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: were induced to forebear from filing suit. See Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Carter, 658 So.2d 560, 562-63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (finding a triable issue as to the estate’s estoppel to claim the limitations defense where the decedent’s surviv- or actively misled a hospital into believing that the decedent left no estate from which to collect outstanding bills), abrogated by May v. Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co., 771 So.2d 1143 (Fla.2000); Alachua County v. Cheshire, 603 So.2d 1334, 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (applying equitable estoppel where the federal government, by continual assurances of payment, induced the plaintiff not to sue on a lien against government-seized property within the limitations period); Jaszay v. H.B. Corp., 598 So.2d 112, 113 (Fla. 4th D 2d 846, 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>); Cape Cave Corp. v. Lowe, 411 So.2d 887, Options: A. holding that an insurer acted in bad faith by failing to keep the insured informed of settlement negotiations B. holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations C. holding that continuing settlement negotiations if infected with an element of deception may create an estoppel D. holding a court may eonsider settlement negotiations for the purpose of deciding a reasonable attorney fee award E. holding the connection is an element

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that continuing settlement negotiations if infected with an element of deception may create an estoppel
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: 563 U.S. 421, 438, 131 S.Ct. 1866, 179 L.Ed.2d 843 (2011). Nonetheless, the District Court and the Plan have cited to the language in the Summary Plan Description (“SPD”) as the language of the Plan. We, too, adopt this approach. See US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U.S. 88, 133 S.Ct. 1537, 1543 n.1, 185 L.Ed.2d 654 (2013) ("Because everyone in this case has treated the language from the summary description as though it came from the plan, we do so as well.”). Moreover, insofar as McLaughlin and J.J.M. now contend that the SPD was not "designated a plan document” and so cannot control here, McLaughlin Reply Br. 1, we deem this argument forfeited because it is raised solely in the reply brief. See Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). 4 . We have considered McLaughlin's and Options: A. holding an argument not raised in opening brief is waived B. holding that a party waives an argument that it raises in the background section of its brief but not in the argument section C. holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief D. holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived E. holding that an argument is not preserved unless a party raises it in its opening brief

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an argument is not preserved unless a party raises it in its opening brief
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 notice or communication under this Agreement must be in writing and given by (i) deposit in the United States mail, addressed to the party to be notified, postage prepaid and registered or certified with return receipt requested, (ii) delivery in person or by courier service providing evidence of delivery or (iii) transmission by hand delivery, telecopy, telegram, facsimile or email. Each notice or communication that is mailed, delivered or transmitted in the manner described above shall be deemed sufficiently given, served, sent, and received, in the case of mailed notices, on the third (3rd) business day following the date on which it is mailed, in the case of notices delivered by courier service, hand delivery, telecopy or telegram, at such time as it is delivered to the addressee (with the delivery receipt or the affidavit of messenger) or at such time as delivery is refused by the addressee upon presentation, and in the case of notices delivered by facsimile or email, at such time as it is successfully transmitted to the addressee. Any notice or communication under this Agreement must be addressed, if to the Company, to: 452 Fifth Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10018, or by email at: SSchnitzer@tortoiseadvisors.com, if to the Sponsor or Tortoise Borrower, to: 11550 Ash Street, Suite 300, Leawood, KS 66211, or by email at: JKruske@tortoiseadvisors.com, and, if to any Holder, to the address of such Holder as it appears in the applicable register for the Registrable Securities or such other address as may be designated in writing by such Holder (including on the signature pages hereto). Any party may change its address for notice at any time and from time to time by written notice to the other parties hereto, and such change of address shall become effective thirty (30) days after delivery of such notice as provided in this Section 5.1 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority.”). AFFIRMED. 1 . The defendant has spelled his last name as "Hayward” and “Heyward.” The magistrate judge found that the former spelling is correct, amended the case caption, and ordered all subsequent filings to conform with that spelling. We use that spelling throughout this opinion. 2 . Hayward also does not point to any evidence that the sentencing court in fact relied on the residual clause when it concluded his prior convictions are violent felonies. Without that evidence, he cannot show that his sentence was unconstitutional under Johnson. See Beeman v. United States, 817 F.3d 1215, 1223 (11th Cir. 2017) Options: A. holding that the vagueness doctrine does not apply to advisory sentencing guidelines notwithstanding the governments position that the residual clause of 4b12a was unconstitutionally vague following johnson B. holding a defendant could not receive an enhanced sentenced under the residual clause of 4b12a2 following johnson C. holding that johnson did not support the defendants collateral challenge under 28 usc 2255 to his sentence enhanced under the residual clause of the ussg D. holding that to prove a johnson claim the movant must show thatmore likely than notit was use of the residual clause that led to the sentencing courts enhancement of his sentence E. holding that a sentencing court may warn a defendant of the possibility of a sentence enhancement

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that to prove a johnson claim the movant must show thatmore likely than notit was use of the residual clause that led to the sentencing courts enhancement of his sentence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement shall be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, void, or otherwise unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement, to the extent permitted by Law, shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect. Upon any such determination, the parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effort to agree upon a suitable and equitable substitute provision to effect the original intent of the parties.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THE PARTIES HEREBY WAIVE, RELEASE AND RELINQUISH ANY AND ALL RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTIONS TO ENFORCE AN ARBITRATOR’S DECISION PURSUANT TO SECTION 11(l) OF THIS AGREEMENT.

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 captions in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and in no way define, describe or limit the scope or intent of this Agreement or of any of the provisions hereof. Whenever required by the context of this Agreement, the singular shall include the plural and the masculine shall include the feminine and vice versa. All references in this Agreement to Articles, Sections and Exhibits are references to the Articles and the Sections of this Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto, as the case may be, unless expressly otherwise designated in the context. The Recitals at the beginning of this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference. All Exhibits attached hereto are incorporated herein by reference.

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: Id. Not so here. In determining the validity of Officer’s Ware’s stop, it is not unreasonable to consider both the risk of harm resulting from a failure to stop the vehicle, based on the reasons articulated by Officer Ware, and the level of intrusiveness occasioned by a detention. See State v. Richardson, 156 Wis.2d 128, 456 N.W.2d 830, 834 (1990) (reasonableness of stop “is a common sense question, which strikes a balance between the interests of society in solving crime and the members of that society to be free from unreasonable intrusions”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The police intervention in this case consisted of a brief motor-vehicle stop and inquiry, “not a hands-on violation of the person.” See State v. Boyea, 171 Vt. 401, 410, 765 A.2d 862, 868 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The “liberty interest at stake” in the case Options: A. holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when confidential informant personally observed the vehicle provided a description of the vehicle and its direction detailed the basis for her suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in illegal activity and had previously given reliable information that led to the successful apprehension of individuals engaged in various criminal activity B. holding that district court lacked authority to dismiss charges of driving under the influence reckless driving operating a motor vehicle without a seatbelt and operating a motor vehicle without insurance without states consent where dismissal was at gonzalezs request based on absence of arresting officer C. holding that police officer could make investigative stop of vehicle based on anonymous tip that vehicle was operating erratically without personally observing incriminating behavior D. holding police officer had probable cause to believe defendant was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol E. holding a stop was effected where officers vehicle blocked defendants vehicle from proceeding

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that police officer could make investigative stop of vehicle based on anonymous tip that vehicle was operating erratically without personally observing incriminating behavior
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 sensing device but the fact of the intrusion into a closed area otherwise hidden from human view, which is the hallmark of any search.")(quoting United States v. Bronstein, 521 F.2d 459, 464 (2d Cir.1975)(Mansfield, J., concurring)). 6 . See People v. Daverin, 967 P.2d 629, 632 (Colo.1998)(""Another well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement is a search undertaken incident to a lawful arrest."). 7 . See People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 77 (Colo.1995)(stating that "warrantless search of a vehicle lawfully impounded by law enforcement officials designed to produce an inventory of the contents of that vehicle and conducted pursuant to routine administrative procedures" is an exception to the warrant requirement). 8 . See People v. Kluhsman, 980 P.2d 529, 534 (Colo.1999)(<HOLDING>). 9 . See People v. Clements, 661 P.2d 267, 271 Options: A. holding that the doorway of the home is a public place for purposes of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment B. holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment C. holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant D. holding that plain view requirement that there be a prior justification for the officers presence was met by search warrant and that even assuming that warrant was invalid good faith exception was applicable to permit admission of the evidence E. holding that a canine sniff is a search for purposes of the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant