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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: their totality, support application of the exclusionary rule under Herring. ... Herring requires careful consideration by district courts of whether the goal of deterring violations of the Fourth Amendment outweighs the costs to truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives in each case.”). Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s decision and remand to allow the District Court to make further findings and to perform the required exclusionary rule analysis. iji if: if: # if: We have considered all of the arguments advanced by the parties and conclude that no further discussion is necessary. The judgment of the District Court will be VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . See, e.g., United States v. McGrew, 122 F.3d 847, 849 (9th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dahlman, 13 F.3d 1391, 1395 Options: A. holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit B. holding that an incorporated affidavit did not provide particularity because the government offered no evidence that the affidavit or any copies were ever attached to the warrant or were present at the time of the search C. holding that a search warrant is invalid if not based on an affidavit D. holding that search warrant which was lacking sufficient description of premises and did not have affidavit attached was not fatally defective when read together with affidavit and when one of officers executing warrant was affiant E. holding that the government cannot rely upon affidavits not attached to the warrant itself to satisfy the particularity requirement

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an incorporated affidavit did not provide particularity because the government offered no evidence that the affidavit or any copies were ever attached to the warrant or were present at the time of the search
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 number of shares and type of all authorized, issued and outstanding capital stock, options and other securities of the Company as of June 30, 2016 (whether then convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for shares of capital stock of the Company) is set forth in Schedule 3.1(g) hereto. Except as set forth in Schedule 3.1(g) , no Person has any right of first refusal, preemptive right, right of participation, or any similar right to participate in the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents that have not been effectively waived as of the Closing Date. Except as set forth in Schedule 3.1(g) , the issuance and sale of the Units will not obligate the Company to issue shares of Common Stock or other securities to any Person (other than the Purchasers and the Placement Agent) and will not result in a right of any holder of Company securities to adjust the exercise, conversion, exchange or reset price under any of such securities. All of the outstanding shares of capital stock of the Company are validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable, have been issued in compliance with all applicable federal and state securities laws, and none of such outstanding shares was issued in violation of any preemptive rights or similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. No further approval or authorization of any stockholder, the Board of Directors or others is required for the issuance and sale of the Securities.

assistant: Capitalization
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: Overton also contends that Zientek should have been questioned on his involvement with Daniels on other matters to illustrate that Zientek worked as an agent for the State. This mode of impeachment was considered and rejected by Smith because it would have opened the door to bolstering Zientek’s testimony if the information given to Daniels in subsequent cases was corroborated by Daniels as being truthful. See Jones, 928 So.2d at 1185. For all these reasons, the decision to not further explore the alleged relationship with Daniels was not deficient performance. Even if any of these failures were deemed to constitute deficient performance, there was no prejudice. Green provided similar testimony that supported the conviction here. See Whitfield v. State, 923 So.2d 375, 380 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). Overton has failed to assert specific, Options: A. holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel B. holding the failure to call alibi witnesses promised during opening statement was not ineffective assistance of counsel C. holding that prosecutor free to comment on defendants failure to call certain witnesses or present certain testimony D. holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failure to present cumulative evidence E. holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence
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: § 101.106(f) and Phillips v. Dafonte, 187 5.W.3d 669, 675 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.)). The movant employee bears the burden of proving that the suit could have been brought under the TTCA against a governmental unit. See id. General medical malpractice claims are not encompassed by the TTCA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. However, Dr. Wang was never required to make any such showing and the trial court never ruled that he had done so because Kamel voluntarily amended his pleadings removing Dr. Wang as a defendant and adding UTHSCH. Thus, Ka-mel’s case is distinguishable from one in which the employee must satisfy the burden of proving both prongs under 101.106(f). See Hintz v. Lally, 305 S.W.3d 761, 767 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). After Kamel amended his pleadings adding Options: A. holding that the court had an adequate record to grant the defendants motion for summary judgment because the relevant evidence would have been in plaintiffs possession B. holding that a plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of a complaint does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain a motion for sanctions under rule 11 C. holding that a summary judgment motion must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion D. holding plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of doctor distinguishes case from circumstances in which trial court is presented with motion under 101106f and must address the could have been brought under this chapter clause in course of deciding whether to grant or deny motion E. holding district court had no authority to require plaintiffs to obtain courts permission to dismiss defendant who had not served answer or motion for summary judgment as plaintiffs had absolute right to dismissal without prejudice and thus court could not sanction plaintiffs for filing notice of voluntary dismissal rather than motion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of doctor distinguishes case from circumstances in which trial court is presented with motion under 101106f and must address the could have been brought under this chapter clause in course of deciding whether to grant or deny motion
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: the federal arbitration act ( including its procedural provisions ) is the law that will be applied to determine whether section 17 ( agreement to arbitrate and class action waiver ) can be enforced and how it should be interpreted .

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: this standard is "much weaker” than that mandated by the patent law under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Softel, Inc., 118 F.3d at 969. In Nadel v. Play-By-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc., 208 F.3d 368, 380, 54 USPQ2d 1810 (2d Cir.2000), the Second Circuit held: New York law in submission-of-ideas case is governed by the following principles: Contract-based claims require only a showing that the disclosed idea was novel to the buyer in order to furnish consideration.... By contrast, misappropriation claims require that the idea at issue be original and novel in absolute terms. Id. at 380, 208 F.3d 368, 54 USPQ2d at 1817. While Nadel was an idea-submitter case, the New York courts have required an identical showing of "novelty” to support a trade secret claim. See Softel, Inc., 118 F.3d at 969 n. 11 Options: A. holding that new york law applies to this matter B. holding that new york law requires the same showing of novelty in trade secret claim as in submission of ideas claim and quoting murray v natl broadcasting co inc 844 f2d 988 994 2d cir1988 C. holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york D. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership E. holding that new york law requires this same showing of novelty in a trade secret claim as in submissionofidea cases

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that new york law requires this same showing of novelty in a trade secret claim as in submissionofidea cases
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: accountants, chemists, and demolition experts. Id. The background note adds that the guideline applies to those “who abuse ... their special skills” as “[s]uch persons generally are viewed as more culpable.” Id., comment, (backg’d). “If an average person off the street does not possess the skill, then the skill is considered special for the purposes of applying the enhancement.” De la Cruz Suarez, 601 F.3d at 1219 (quotation omitted). A special skill requires neither licensing nor formal education. United States v. Foster, 155 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 1998)(hold-ing that “[although printing does not require licensing or formal education, it is a unique technical skill that clearly requires special training”); see also United States v. Malgoza, 2 F.3d 1107, 1111 (11th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not clearly err in Options: A. holding lay persons performing tasks relating to real estate transactions were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and explaining it is the duty of the court to protect the public from the activity of those who because of lack of professional skills may cause injury whether they are members of the bar or persons never qualified for or admitted to the bar quotation marks and citation omitted B. holding that it is not C. holding that court of appeals erred by holding in the first instance that members of a family are a particular social group without prior resolution of this issue by the bia D. holding that this court must remand to the bia to allow it to address in the first instance an issue that it has not yet considered E. holding that although not every instance of radio operation requires skills not possessed by members of the general public it is possible to develop expertise in that field that rises to the level of aspecial skill

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that although not every instance of radio operation requires skills not possessed by members of the general public it is possible to develop expertise in that field that rises to the level of aspecial skill
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ... supports a reasonable inference ... that Congress did not attempt to preempt other matters.” Lorillard Tobacco Co., 533 U.S. at 541, 121 S.Ct. 2404 (citations omitted). This duty includes, where possible, following an agency’s regulation defining the scope of federal preemption. See City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57, 63-64, 108 S.Ct. 1637, 100 L.Ed.2d 48 (1988). Second, when determining whether federal legislation preempts state law, courts must look not only to the state law as written, but also to how it is interpreted and applied in a given factual setting. State laws of general applicability, while not necessarily preempted on their face, may nevertheless be preempted “as applied.” See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 226-28, 115 S.Ct. 817, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. Options: A. holding that labeling an airline unsafe would inevitably cost the airline future government contracts B. holding the illinois consumer fraud act preempted by the federal airline deregulation act to the extent the state law applied to airline frequent flier programs C. holding that the airline deregulation act preempts claims under the illinois consumer fraud and deceptive business practices act but does not preempt state breach of contract actions D. holding that congress did not intend to preempt state common law actions for personal injury based on the negligence of the airline or its employees E. holding a state workers compensation regime preempted by erisa to the extent state law applied to pension plans governed by federal law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding the illinois consumer fraud act preempted by the federal airline deregulation act to the extent the state law applied to airline frequent flier 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: individual may have a possible immigration or criminal violation in the United States. In this instance, two lookouts were placed on the name Sandy Garcia, the first being a one-day lookout based on the perceived irregularity of a Dominican citizen traveling from Buenos Aires to Dulles, as reflected in defendant’s flight itinerary. The second, more general lookout was based on the fact that a previous immigration violation included in the government's records suggested that possible imposters were using the name Sandy Garcia and his corresponding birth date and A number. 3 . This last statement obviously aroused Officer Ho’s suspicion, as it was inconsistent with defendant’s contemporaneous statement that he had been outside the United States for the past two mon 1287 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 6 . To be sure, the unlawful reentry statute Options: A. holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states B. recognizing that any party who voluntarily approaches an ins station cannot be said to have been found or discovered in the united states C. holding that sovereign immunity does not bar extinguishment of united states junior lien in proceeding in which united states was not a party D. recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states E. holding that when a defendant voluntarily approached the immigration officer at the airport it cannot be said that he was discovered in or found in the united states

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that any party who voluntarily approaches an ins station cannot be said to have been found or discovered in the united states
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Term, the Executive’s annual base salary shall be two hundred twenty thousand dollars ($220,000.00) (the “Base Salary”). The Base Salary shall be payable in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures in effect from time to time. Executive shall be considered for performance and market-based increases to the Base Salary on an annual basis, which increases shall be granted at the discretion of the Board. The Base Salary shall be retroactive and payable as of July 19, 2017.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive shall be entitled to twenty-two (22) days paid vacation and sick leave per year in accordance with the Company’s policies and shall be entitled to accrue ten (10) days of vacation time during the Employment Term in accordance with the Company’s vacation policy. Vacation is to be taken at such intervals as shall be appropriate and consistent with the proper performance of the Executive’s duties hereunder. The existing vacation accrued for the past four (4) years to date not to exceed sixty (60) days will rollover into this Agreement.

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

user: 4. All CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION will remain the property of the disclosing Party and, upon request of the disclosing Party, the receiving Party shall promptly return to the disclosing Party all CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, or any part or reproduction thereof. 8. The Parties understand and agree that no right or license under any patent, patent application, or know-how is granted to any other Party or any other person by this Agreement or by any disclosure of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

assistant: Yes
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 Lenders and the Issuing Bank may continue to make loans or extend credit to the Borrowers based on this Loan Guaranty until five (5) days after it receives written notice of termination from any Loan Guarantor. Notwithstanding receipt of any such notice, each Loan Guarantor will continue to be liable to the Lenders for any Guaranteed Obligations created, assumed or committed to prior to the fifth day after receipt of the notice, and all subsequent renewals, extensions, modifications and amendments with respect to, or substitutions for, all or any part of such Guaranteed Obligations. Nothing in this Section 10.08 shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of, or eliminate, limit, reduce or otherwise impair any rights or remedies the Administrative Agent or any Lender may have in respect of, any Default or Event of Default that shall exist under Article VII hereof as a result of any such notice of termination.

assistant: Terminations
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: do n't engage in activity that is harmful to you , the services , or others ( e.g. , transmitting viruses , stalking , posting terrorist content , communicating hate speech , or advocating violence against others ) .

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: Any claims under Title VII based on alleged events that occurred more than 180 days before the filing of an EEOC charge are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Stewart, 232 F.3d at 848. Plaintiff did not file an EEOC charge himself but apparently intends to “piggy-back” on the EEOC charge filed on July 21, 2000, by co-plaintiff Michael Edwards. Because none of the acts about which Plaintiff complains occurred on or after January 24, 2000, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Title VII. Nor can Plaintiff state a claim under Section 1981 based on alleged events that occurred more than two years before the filing of this lawsuit, or before July 28, 1998. Hill v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 841 F.2d 1533, 1546 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The only allegations Plaintiff now maintains Options: A. holding that a compulsory counterclaim was barred by pennsylvanias twoyear statute of limitations notwithstanding that the plaintiff filed his complaint late in the twoyear limitations period B. holding that texas twoyear statute of limitations applied to section 1981 action for discrimination on the basis of national origin C. recognizing twoyear statute of limitations for section 1981 claims filed in federal court in georgia D. holding that texas twoyear statute of limitations applied to suit alleging racial discrimination under 42 usc 1981 E. holding that a twoyear statute of limitations applies to negligence claims under texas law

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing twoyear statute of limitations for section 1981 claims filed in federal court in georgia
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: en uring a drug trafficking offense and carrying a pistol without a license, both premised on a gun that McLendon allegedly had on his person at the time of his arrest. 6 .See Greer v. Miller, 4 754 (D.C.Cir.1998) (”[T]he defendant bears the initial burden of showing government inducement; if he is successful, the burden then shifts to the government to prove the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.”). 8 . Government behavior amounts to inducement only “when it was such that a law-. abiding citizen’s will to obey the law could have been overborne.’ ” Glover, 153 F.3d at 754 (quoting United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C.Cir.1984)); 'see also United States v. Hanson, 339 F.3d 983, 989 (D.C.Cir. 2003). 9 . See United States v. Neville, 82 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Walls, 70 F.3d at 1329 (holding that where Options: A. holding that because statutory variants of an underlying crime are not elements of an attempt to commit the underlying crime jurors are not required to unanimously find which specific statutory variant the defendant intended to commit it is sufficient that they unanimously conclude that the defendant intended to commit any of the applicable statutory variants B. holding that the alacrity and active interest with which the defendant embraced the plan to smuggle drugs would justify a jury in finding him predisposed to commit the crime C. holding the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it may find the defendant guilty of conspiracy if the jury found the defendant agreed with at least one other person where the indictment charged the defendant with conspiring with a single named individual and the evidence tended to show the defendant may have conspired with a number of persons not just the named coconspirator to commit an unlawful act D. holding that trial counsels strategy of explaining that defendant was at the scene of crime to deal drugs rather than commit robbery was not unreasonable E. holding that firstdegree murder is one crime although the defendant can commit the crime in several ways

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the alacrity and active interest with which the defendant embraced the plan to smuggle drugs would justify a jury in finding him predisposed to commit the crime
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to access or use the services , you must be able to form a binding contract with crowdtangle and you must not be prohibited from receiving the services under united states law or any other applicable laws .

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: and searched. A set of car keys was found in his front pocket. Defendant was taken to the sheriffs department and charged in relation to the death and injuries of the motorcyclists. A chemical test would later show Defendant’s blood alcohol content to be O.14. {6} Before trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the deputies’ entry into his home was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. The district court denied the motion to suppress and concluded that, under the emergency assistance doctrine, the deputies’ warrantless entry into the home was justified by the deputies’ concern for Defendant’s safety. See State v. Ryon, 2005-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 27, 39, 137 N.M. 174, 108 P.3d 1032 (<HOLDING>). The case proceeded to trial, and Defendant Options: A. holding that an illegal arrest occurred when the defendant was transported without probable cause from his home to the police station for fingerprinting and that the line is crossed when the police without probable cause or a warrant forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station where he is detained although briefly for investigative purposes B. recognizing emergency exception C. holding that police officers may enter a home without a warrant or consent under the emergency assistance doctrine when police have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property D. recognizing that the community caretaking exception is distinct from the emergency aid or emergency assistance exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement E. holding that the victims statements to a 911 operator while the perpetrator was in the home were nontestimonial because their primary purpose was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that police officers may enter a home without a warrant or consent under the emergency assistance doctrine when police have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property
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: Within five (5) Business Days after the Effective Date, Borrower shall have delivered to Lender evidence satisfactory to Lender that the insurance policies and endorsements required by Section 6.5 hereof are in full force and effect, together with appropriate evidence showing lender loss payable and/or additional insured clauses or endorsements in favor of Lender.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Parties agree that the Indemnification Agreement dated May 5, 2015 (“Indemnification Agreement”) between Executive and the Company shall survive the execution of this Agreement and shall not be terminated, modified, waived, or otherwise effected by this Agreement of any of the terms set forth herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof and throughout the term of the Loan: (a) no Borrower is and will be (i) an “employee benefit plan,” as defined in Section 3(3) of ERISA, (ii) a “governmental plan” within the meaning of Section 3(32) of ERISA, or (iii) a “plan” within the meaning of Section 4975(e) of the Code; (b) the assets of each Borrower do not and will not constitute “plan assets” within the meaning of the United States Department of Labor Regulations set forth in Section 2510.3-101 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations; (c) transactions by or with any Borrower are not and will not be subject to state statutes applicable to such Borrower regulating investments of fiduciaries with respect to governmental plans; and (d) no Borrower will engage in any transaction that would cause any Obligation or any action taken or to be taken hereunder (or the exercise by Administrative Agent of any of its rights under any of the Security Instruments or any of the other Loan Documents) to be a non-exempt (under a statutory or administrative class exemption) prohibited transaction under ERISA or Section 4975 of the Code. Each Borrower agrees to deliver to Administrative Agent and each Lender such certifications or other evidence of compliance with the provisions of this Section as Administrative Agent or, subject to the terms of Section 4.8(e) , any Lender may from time to time request.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Note Parties and their Subsidiaries have conducted their business in compliance in all material respects with the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, the UK Bribery Act 2010 and other similar anti-corruption legislation in other applicable jurisdictions, and have instituted and maintained policies and procedures designed to promote and achieve compliance with such Laws.

assistant: Anti-Corruption 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 RSUs may not be sold, assigned, transferred, pledged or otherwise encumbered. Upon your Termination of Service for any reason, other than as set forth in paragraphs (b) – (e) of Paragraph 3 hereof, you shall forfeit all of your right, title and interest in and to all unvested RSUs, except as provided in the Second Amended and Restated Master Employment Agreement (“Employment Agreement”) between you and Invesco Ltd., dated April 1, 2011, as amended from time to time, or as determined by the Committee pursuant to Paragraph 3.1 hereof. In addition, upon the Determination Date, you shall forfeit all of your right, title and interest in and to any RSUs that are eligible to vest and become non-forfeitable on such date, but which fail to vest and become non-forfeitable on such date pursuant to the Performance Vesting Formula.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: as a “general contract defense” under Iowa law. ii. Procedural and substantive unconscionability. “Unconscionability,” however, is itself a “general contract defense” under Iowa law. Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Steinlage, 409 N.W.2d 173, 174 (Iowa 1987) (“Unconscionability ... is a recognized defense to the enforcement of the contract.”) (citing Casey v. Lupkes, 286 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1979)); Casey, 286 N.W.2d at 207 (“We hold that the defense of unconscionability is available in any contract action.”); see also Iowa Code § 554.2302(1) (2001) (“If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract....”); Restatement (Second) of CONTRACTS § 209 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Under Iowa law, “[t]he burden of proving that Options: A. holding that contracts of adhesion are not voidable unless unconscionable B. recognizing doctrine C. holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims D. recognizing the doctrine of unenforceability of unconscionable contracts E. holding that a later concession to strike an unconscionable term does not change the fact that the arbitration agreement as written is unconscionable and contrary to public policy

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the doctrine of unenforceability of unconscionable contracts
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: Ana Pozos appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Cory Birnberg APC, in Birnberg’s action to enforce an order awarding attorney fees pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 928(c) in a Long-shore and Harbor Workers Compensation case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Feiler v. United States, 62 F.3d 315, 316 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Birnberg’s attorney fee order was enforceable and the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Pozos’ challenges to the ALJ’s underlying decision. See Thompson v. Potashnick Constr. Co, 812 F.2d 574, 576 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. *** This disposition is not Options: A. holding that a district court only has jurisdiction to order compliance with compensation orders entered by an administrative law judge alj and reviewed by the benefits review board and to screen for procedural defects but may not otherwise affirm modify suspend or set aside a compensation order based on the substantive merits of the aljs decision B. holding that a presumptive partial disability exists by virtue of the order to suspend compensation the employer can eliminate liability only by offering suitable work C. holding that an order in a criminal matter drafted by the prosecutor and signed by the circuit judge was in compliance with requirements of the law D. holding that an appellate court may not exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review a nonfinal district court order where the merits of the nonfinal order are not inextricably intertwined with the properly appealed collateral order or where review of the former is not necessary to ensure meaningful review of the latter E. holding that this court could not affirm the aljs finding of gross misconduct because the alj failed to make findings on every material contested issue of fact

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a district court only has jurisdiction to order compliance with compensation orders entered by an administrative law judge alj and reviewed by the benefits review board and to screen for procedural defects but may not otherwise affirm modify suspend or set aside a compensation order based on the substantive merits of the aljs decision
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 Amendment, together with the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents, constitutes the entire agreement between the Lender and the Borrowers concerning the subject matter hereof, and may not be altered or amended except by written agreement signed by Lender. PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 25-5-4, EACH BORROWER IS NOTIFIED THAT THESE AGREEMENTS ARE A FINAL EXPRESSION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LENDER AND THE BORROWERS AND THESE AGREEMENTS MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF ANY ALLEGED ORAL AGREEMENT.

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: 229, 234 (1939); State v. Weyerhauser, 72 Minn. 519, 519-20, 75 N.W. 718, 718 (1898). A. A Supreme Court decision is on point when it resolves the federal question presented for our review. Two factors guide our analysis in determining whether a decision is on point. The most important consideration is whether the Supreme Court decision resolved the same, disputed question of federal law. See Meadowbrook Manor, 258 Minn. at 272, 104 N.W.2d at 545 (concluding that notice by newspaper publication of a special assessment on real property did not comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment based on three Supreme Court decisions, even though this court had previously upheld notice by publication in similar circumstances); Glover, 215 Minn. at 535-38, 10 N.W.2d at 482-83 (<HOLDING>). That is because the Supreme Court has the Options: A. holding that the sixth and fourteenth amendments imply the right to selfrepresentation B. holding that a prisoners right to hie grievances is constitutionally protected under the first and fourteenth amendments C. holding that the confrontation clause is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment D. holding that the fifth amendments protection against selfincrimination is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment E. holding that peaceful picketing is protected through the first and fourteenth amendments on the basis of five supreme court decisions examining the question

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that peaceful picketing is protected through the first and fourteenth amendments on the basis of five supreme court decisions examining the question
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 hands of fellow inmates and describing his injuries, but omitting “facts suggesting that the prison medical staff had' treated him inappropriately.” 349 F.3d at 426. The prisoner later brought suit on a medical malpractice theory. The Seventh Circuit held that, although it was a “close[] question,” the prisoner failed to provide sufficient notice, because he “did not include facts in his [notice] from which a legally sophisticated reader might have discerned that he had received inadequate medical treatment.” 349 F.3d at 427 (distinguishing this standard from the Fifth Circuit’s more liberal standard in Frantz v. United States, 29 F.3d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1994)). See Bethel v. U.S., ex rel. Veterans Admin. Med. Ctr. of Denver, Colorado, 495 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1124 (D.Colo. 2007) ■ (<HOLDING>). Other courts have been more generous. In Options: A. holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal B. holding insurer vicariously liable for defense counsels negligent defense of a medical malpractice claim C. recognizing that even when a prisoner files suit under section 1983 alleging medical malpractice against prison medical officials medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner D. holding that plaintiffs treatmentbased claim which focused on medical malpractice was insufficient notice of subsequent negligent supervision argument E. holding that notice of judgment was insufficient

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that plaintiffs treatmentbased claim which focused on medical malpractice was insufficient notice of subsequent negligent supervision argument
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: 77p(f)(2). Id. § 77v(a). So understood, the Jurisdiction Provision vests the federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over covered class actions asserting claims under the Securities Act (“Securities Act class actions”). As a result, if a Securities Act class action is initiated in state court, that action is not barred from removal; indeed, such action must either be removéd to federal court or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Because the instant action is a putative Securities Act class action, the New York state court was not a “court of competent jurisdiction” under the Anti-Removal Provision, and the action was therefore properly removed. In. so holding, this court joins a growing consensus among district courts in the Second Circuit. Compare Hung, 2016 WL 299034, at *4 (<HOLDING>); In re Fannie Mae 2008 Sec. Litig., No. Options: A. holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive B. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts C. holding that a state securities claim which alleged federal mail wire and securities violations as the predicate acts did not arise under federal law and thus did not create federal jurisdiction D. holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over 1983 claims E. holding that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over securities act class actions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over securities act class actions
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 otherwise expressly provided herein, each Party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby whether or not such transactions shall be consummated, including all fees of its legal counsel, financial advisers and accountants. All required documentary, filing and recording fees and expenses in connection with the filing and recording of the assignments, conveyances or other instruments required to convey title to the Assets shall be borne by Buyer.

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: All notices and other communications provided for hereunder shall be in writing (including facsimile or e-mail) and mailed or sent to the applicable party at its address set forth below its signature hereto (or, in the case of an assignee pursuant to Section 7.06 that is not a party hereto on the Closing Date, at its address specified in the Assignment and Assumption pursuant to which it becomes the Bank and in the case of any Subsidiary Applicant that is not a party hereto on the Closing Date, at its address specified in the Adherence Agreement pursuant to which it becomes a Subsidiary Applicant) or at such other address as shall be designated by such party in a written notice to the other parties. All such notices and communications shall be effective (a) if mailed, three Business Days after the date deposited in the mail, (b) if sent by messenger or courier, when delivered, or (c) if sent by facsimile or e-mail, when the sender receives electronic confirmation of receipt, except that (i) notices and communications to the Bank pursuant to Article II , shall not be effective until received by such Person; and (ii) any notice or other communication received at a time when the recipient is not open for its regular business shall be deemed received one hour after such recipient is again open for its regular business.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of a Change in Control, the Committee may, in its discretion and upon at least ten (10) days’ advance notice to the Participant, cancel the Option and pay to the Participant the value of the Option based upon the price per share of Common Stock received or to be received by other shareholders of the Company in the Change of Control event.

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: the Supreme Court has stressed that a warrantless entry into a home may be “legal when there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.” Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) (emphasis added). For purposes of the Fourth Amendment analysis in this case, it makes no difference that the officers did not enter Fisher’s apartment to take physical custody of him. We have long recognized that “it is the location of the arrested person, and not the arresting agents, that determines whether an arrest occurs within a home.” United States v. Johnson, 626 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir.1980), aff'd on other grounds, 457 U.S. 537, 102 S.Ct. 2579, 73 L.Ed.2d 202 (1982); see also United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). With these basic Fourth Amendment principles Options: A. holding that the injury was inflicted by the defendant when it occurred while the defendant applied force directly to the victims person B. holding that the state could not under any circumstances be charged for the delay during the period the defendant was held after his arrest for and until his conviction on felony charges in another jurisdiction C. holding that defendant voluntarily consented where defendants only basis for coercion was that the officers said that if he did not consent they would get a warrant which would take a while D. holding that automobile exception applied to search of defendants tractor trailer where confidential informant who was detained at border with a trailer full of marijuana told agents that he was driving to meet the defendant to exchange trailers and defendant subsequently arrived at the location described at the time described in a tractor with an empty trailer that matched informants description E. holding that because defendant only emerged under circumstances of extreme coercion the arrest occurred while he was still inside his trailer

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that because defendant only emerged under circumstances of extreme coercion the arrest occurred while he was still inside his trailer