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: Company hereby covenants and agrees to, not later than then Merger Closing Date (as defined in the Note), use $1,000,000.00 of the Purchase Price to reduce Company’s outstanding obligations (the “ Hercules Debt ”) under that certain Loan and Security Agreement (the “ Hercules Loan Agreement ”) between Company and Hercules Capital, Inc. (f/k/a Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc.), a Maryland corporation (“ Hercules ”), on August 18, 2015, as amended and the documents executed and delivered in connection therewith and to use the remainder of the Purchase Price to make payments under the Hercules Loan Agreement and for other general corporate purposes.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the Notice of Appeal pertained to Omar Tecat in CR 02-575) App. at 7. 5 . That docket entry stated: Clerk's Quality Control Message: Document [3] NOTICE OF DOCKETING filed by the USCA should have been filed in the traditional manner, on paper, as this case is not subject to e-filing at this time, as previously explained on 7/19/05. (ck) App. at 2. 6 . The question has recently arisen in the courts of appeals as to whether Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are rules that govern subject-matter jurisdiction (that may not be waived) or are merely "inflexible claim-processing” rules (that may be waived). This concern was sparked by the Supreme Court’s recent holdings in Eberhart v. United States, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 403, 407, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>), and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455-456, Options: A. holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived B. holding that kontrick and eberhart require the conclusion that rule 59e is a claimprocessing rule C. holding that rule 33 of the federal rules of criminal procedure is an inflexible claimprocessing rule that may be waived if not raised D. holding that the time limit to move for a new trial under federal rule of criminal pro cedure 33b2 is claimprocessing rule forfeited by governments failure to timely raise it E. recognizing a presumption that a plea of guilty is final and binding if the plea was made during a properly conducted hearing pursuant to rule 11 of the federal rules of criminal procedure

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that rule 33 of the federal rules of criminal procedure is an inflexible claimprocessing rule that may be waived if not raised
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 to request additional sick time, which the Police Department also refused. On June 2, 1998, Perch filed a charge with the MCAD for gender and disability discrimination. She alleged in her charge that Quincy refused to provide additional sick time and grant shift changes to accommodate her CFS-related difficulties, though it extended sick time and granted shift changes for male officers with serious medical problems. In October 1999, Perch was diagnosed with cervical cancer and scheduled to undergo surgery. Perch requested additional sick time under a “cancer clause” in the Police Department’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, which grants an extra six months of sick time to officers who are diagnosed with cancer. This request was denied. Several officers volunteered to donate 1998) (<HOLDING>). Quincy argues that Perch did not meet the Options: A. holding when an employee was temporarily replaced by a person who was 10 years younger and permanently replaced by a person four years younger this was sufficient for the prima facie case B. holding that adea plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of age discrimination when he was replaced by someone only two years younger and within the protected age group and there was no other evidence of age discriminatory motive C. holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to gender discrimination and retaliation claims where she had only asserted discrimination based on race and disability in her eeoc complaint D. holding that the fourth prong of a prima facie age discrimination case was satisfied where plaintiff was replaced by two individuals one who was four years younger than plaintiff and the other who was ten years younger E. holding that plaintiff whose administrative charge alleged only that he was falsely accused of being rude to customers and was replaced by a younger worker could not sue for discrimination based on religion and disability

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiff whose administrative charge alleged only that he was falsely accused of being rude to customers and was replaced by a younger worker could not sue for discrimination based on religion and disability
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: owed or due another. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) see Franceschi v. Mautner-Glick Corp., 22 F.Supp.2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y.1998). Plaintiffs’ Fourth Count alleges that Defendants Rawlings, HRI, and Ingenix (“Subrogation Agent Defendants”) violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Am. Compl. ¶ 132.) In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Subrogation Agent Defendants — acting on behalf of health insurance carriers — “provided subrogation services” through Claims Recovery Service Agreements, “acted as a debt collector” and “undertook various collection efforts in violation of FDCPA,” included but not limited to Sections 804(6), 805(a)(2), 807(2), 807(5), 807(10), 807(11) and 809. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 27, 28, 33, 34, 59, 77). Further, Plain -116-A, 2005 WL 6075786 (M.D.La. Apr. 13, 2005) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the documents supporting the Options: A. holding that debt collector violated fdcpa when it held debtor liable for court costs that had not yet been awarded B. holding that it was not possible for plaintiff to be in default until he began receiving payments from third parties and therefore finding that hri a codefendant in this case was not a debt collector under the fdcpa C. holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa D. holding that rawlings a codefendant in the present action is not a debt collector within the meaning of the fdcpa E. holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rawlings a codefendant in the present action is not a debt collector within the meaning of the fdcpa
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a fee award in this case on the basis of the lodestar approach is what amount, if any, should be excluded because Isacs was dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction and Standard Tallow prevailed on a summary judgment motion. It is well-established that hours expended with respect to defendants who have been dismissed from an action are generally not compensable. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1185 (3d Cir.1990); see also Washington v. Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1044 (3d Cir.1996) (stating that a court must deduct hours spent on claims that are “distinct in all respects from” the successful claims); Baughman v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Co., 583 F.2d 1208, 1214 (3d Cir.1978); Hall v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 943 F.Supp. 536, 542 (E.D.Pa.1996) (<HOLDING>); Finch v. Hercules Inc., 941 F.Supp. 1395, Options: A. holding that a court must deduct time exclusively devoted to the defendants without liability B. holding that liability under 2966 cannot attach without first finding employer liability for discrimination under nyhrl C. holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision D. holding that like other affirmative defenses to liability immunity from liability must be pleaded or else it is waived E. holding that because the settlement agreement here specifically did not contain any admission of liability the plaintiff must therefore prove some liability on the part of defendant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a court must deduct time exclusively devoted to the defendants without liability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, including, but not limited to, New York statutes of limitations . Any action brought by either party against the other concerning the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall be brought only in the State Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (or any federal courts having jurisdiction of such area). Both parties and the individual signing this Agreement on behalf of the Borrower agree to submit to the jurisdiction of such courts. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event that any provision of this Note is invalid or unenforceable under any applicable statute or rule of law, then such provision shall be deemed inoperative to the extent that it may conflict therewith and shall be deemed modified to conform with such statute or rule of law. Any such provision which may prove invalid or unenforceable under any law shall not affect the validity or unenforceability of any other provision of this Note. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed or operate to preclude the Holder from bringing suit or taking other legal action against the Borrower in any other jurisdiction to realize on any collateral or any other security for such obligations, or to enforce a judgment or other decision in favor of the Holder.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that at any time, as a result of an adjustment made pursuant to this Section 3, the Holder shall, upon exercise of this Warrant, become entitled to receive securities or assets (other than Common Stock) then, wherever appropriate, all references herein to shares of Common Stock shall be deemed to refer to and include such shares and/or other securities or assets; and thereafter the number of such shares and/or other securities or assets shall be subject to adjustment from time to time in a manner and upon terms as nearly equivalent as practicable to the provisions of this Section 3.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower and RUS each agree that any and all determinations made by FFB shall be conclusive and binding upon the Borrower and RUS with respect to the amount of accrued interest owed on the Bond determined using this rounding methodology.

assistant: 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: from acting as both an advocate and a witness in a single proceeding except under special circumstances. See United States v. Marshall, 75 F.3d 1097, 1106 (7th Cir.1996) (internal citations omitted). While allowing a lawyer to testify is a situation to be avoided if possible, the limits on being a lawyer and witness in the same case are not absolute. See United States v. Johnston, 690 F.2d 638, 644 (7th Cir.1982) (en banc). In exercising its discretion to allow or forbid an attorney to appear as a witness, the court should examine the goals sought to be served by the rule against such dual appearances and determine whether the particular situation confronting the court precludes an attorney from appearing as a witness. See United States v. Morris, 714 F.2d 669, 671-72 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); see also LOC. R. 83.53.7(a)(2) (a lawyer may Options: A. recognizing five rationales for forbidding counsel to appear as witness and stating that a judge is unlikely to be confused by the dual appearance as advocate and witness B. holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness C. holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary D. holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand E. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing five rationales for forbidding counsel to appear as witness and stating that a judge is unlikely to be confused by the dual appearance as advocate and witness
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 consideration for the Lenders’ agreement to fund the New Secured Note and amend the Original Secured Note as set forth herein, the Borrowers jointly and severally agree to pay, at the time of funding of the New Secured Note, the Lenders an aggregate fee equal to the amount set forth on Schedule I hereto.

assistant: Fees
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 panel would have no reservations applying the categorical and modified categorical analysis to determine if § 311.11 was an aggravated felony. I see no principled difference between looking at the elements of the lawful general order underlying Aguilar-Turcios' convictions and looking at the elements of a state criminal statute. To conclude otherwise would be to render the immigration removal laws inapplicable to any alien subject to the UCMJ who is prosecuted for violating an order that would have been prosecuted as a removable crime had it occurred off the military base. 3 . Navarro-Lopez has created a dramatic turnabout on this issue in our circuit. Compare Aguila-Montes De Oca, 553 F.3d at 1234, and United States v. Sandon, 302 Fed.Appx. 719, 720-21 (9th Cir. Dec.5, 2008) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Franklin, 235 F.3d Options: A. holding that the modified categorical approach cannot apply where the alien admitted his entry was unprivileged because arizona does not require a showing of unprivileged entry B. holding that a district court cannot use the psrs factual statements when applying the modified categorical approach C. holding that we need not remand to the bia so that it may apply the categorical approach D. holding that application of the modified categorical approach did not establish a covered conviction where the judgment of conviction did not contain the factual basis for the crime E. holding modified categorical approach unavailable where the statute of conviction was missing an element of the generic definition

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the modified categorical approach cannot apply where the alien admitted his entry was unprivileged because arizona does not require a showing of unprivileged entry
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 TO THIS SECURITY AGREEMENT AND EACH OTHER SECURED PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY SUBMITS TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ANY U.S. FEDERAL OR NEW YORK STATE COURT SITTING IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS SECURITY AGREEMENT AND EACH PARTY TO THIS SECURITY AGREEMENT AND EACH OTHER SECURED PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN ANY SUCH COURT AND IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT IT MAY LEGALLY AND EFFECTIVELY DO SO, ANY OBJECTION IT MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER HAVE AS TO THE VENUE OF ANY SUCH SUIT, ACTION OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN SUCH A COURT OR THAT SUCH COURT IS AN INCONVENIENT FORUM. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL AFFECT THE RIGHT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT OR ANY OTHER SECURED PARTY TO BRING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ANY GRANTOR IN THE COURTS OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of a statement or evidence on the jury,” and a defendant “must show that his substantial rights are prejudicially affected. This occurs when there is a reasonable probability that, but for the remarks, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). “The mere utterance of the word jail, prison, or arrest does not, without regard to context or circumstances, constitute reversible error per se.” Id. With respect to Jasmin’s statement that Miller “had just got out of jail the day before,” the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Miller’s motion for a mistrial. The record reveals that the statement, when made, was volunteered by Jasmin and not expected by the prosecutor. See United States v. Veteto, 701 F.2d 136, 139-40 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). It does appear that the prosecutor attempted Options: A. holding that a mistrial was not warranted because the statement that the defendant had been in prison before was volunteered unexpected and added nothing to the governments case B. holding that because the record in the case had not been developed sufficiently to determine whether a childs statement was admissible under the tender years exception a new trial was warranted C. holding that the objection had been sufficiently timely when the defense waited until the governments rebuttal to object to a statement made during the governments closing statement D. holding that a mistrial was not required after a police officer testified that he had once chased the defendant after the defendant had fired a gun where the testimony was a logical response to the prosecutors questions the statement was not made maliciously the evidence against the defendant was great and the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony E. holding that the court correctly denied a mistrial when the statement that the witness saw the defendant when the defendant was signing in as a condition of bail was brief and added nothing to the governments case

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a mistrial was not warranted because the statement that the defendant had been in prison before was volunteered unexpected and added nothing to the governments case
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 smoke from basement to apartment is covered by the pollution exclusion); Karroll v. Atomergic Chemetals Corp., 194 A.D.2d 715, 600 N.Y.S.2d 101 (2d Dep’t 1993) (accidental spraying of sulfuric acid was not covered by the pollution exclusion); and Henry Modell & Co. v. General Ins. Co. of Trieste & Venice, 193 A.D.2d 412, 597 N.Y.S.2d 75 (1st Dep’t 1993) (dust and debris in apartment resulting from subway construction project is covered by the pollution exclusion). The relevant trial court decisions are: B.U.D. Sheetmetal v. Massachusetts Ins. Co., No. 3513-93 (Sup.Ct.Albany County 1995) (indoor spraying of toxic cleaning solution was within pollution exclusion); General Accident Ins. Co. v. Idbar Realty Corp., 163 Misc.2d 809, 622 N.Y.S.2d 417, 419 (Sup.Ct.Suffolk County 1994) (<HOLDING>), aff'd as modified, — A.D.2d —, 646 N.Y.S.2d Options: A. holding lead paint poisoning covered by the pollution exclusion B. holding that the discharge of paint chips into soil was covered by the pollution exclusion because it polluted the environment but that the presence of lead paint in a household would not be so covered C. holding that the release of carbon monoxide into an apartment is not the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the pollution exclusion clause D. holding that pollution exclusion did not apply to claim arising from ingestion of lead paint because exclusion reasonably may be limited to environmental claims E. holding second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that pollution exclusion did not apply to claim arising from ingestion of lead paint because exclusion reasonably may be limited to environmental claims
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 shall serve as the President of the Company with duties, responsibilities and authority commensurate therewith and shall report to the Chief Executive Officer (the “ CEO ”) of the Company. The Executive shall perform all duties and accept all responsibilities incident to such position as may be reasonably assigned to the Executive by the CEO. The Executive represents to the Company that the Executive is not subject to or a party to any employment agreement, non-competition covenant, or other agreement that would be breached by, or prohibit the Executive from executing, this Agreement and performing fully the Executive’s duties and responsibilities hereunder.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has filed all reports, schedules, forms, statements and other documents required to be filed by the Company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, including pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) thereof, for the two years preceding the date hereof (or such shorter period as the Company was required by law or regulation to file such material) (the foregoing materials, including the exhibits thereto and documents incorporated by reference therein, together with the Prospectus and the Prospectus Supplement, being collectively referred to herein as the “ SEC Reports ”) on a timely basis (except for its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013) or has received a valid extension of such time of filing and has filed any such SEC Reports prior to the expiration of any such extension. As of their respective dates, the SEC Reports complied in all material respects with the requirements of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, as applicable, and none of the SEC Reports, when filed, contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The financial statements of the Company included in the SEC Reports comply in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and the rules and regulations of the Commission with respect thereto as in effect at the time of filing. Such financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis during the periods involved (“ GAAP ”), except as may be otherwise specified in such financial statements or the notes thereto and except that unaudited financial statements may not contain all footnotes required by GAAP, and fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the Company and its consolidated Subsidiaries as of and for the dates thereof and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods then ended, subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal, immaterial, year-end audit adjustments.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 488 F.2d 538, 541-42, 179 USPQ 421, 423-24 (CCPA 1973). Unlike the applicant in Jolly, Exxon has the benefit of a statutory presumption of validity, 35 U.S.C. § 282. In light of that presumption and the difference in posture between an applicant whose application has been rejected and a patentee with an issued patent, close questions of indefiniteness in litigation involving issued patents are properly resolved in favor of the patentee. Thus, in cases subsequent to In re Jolly that have involved issued patents, this court has held claims definite even when some degree of experimentation was necessary, as long as the claims otherwise met the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., 145 F.3d 1303, 1312, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1759 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); W.L. Gore & Assocs., 721 F.2d at 1557, 220 Options: A. holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant B. holding that a whereby clause that was substantially amended to overcome prior art was sufficiently definite to constitute a claim limitation and did not simply announce the inventions result C. holding that the recitation of a quantitative drop rod test rendered definite a claim limitation D. recognizing that a principal may limit the authority of its agent and such limitation will be binding on a third party who is aware of the limitation E. holding that the patentees argument that any shape would be equivalent to the conical limitation would write such a limitation out of the claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the recitation of a quantitative drop rod test rendered definite a claim limitation
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 set forth on Schedule 3(k) , the Company has no liabilities or obligations, absolute or contingent (individually or in the aggregate), except (i) liabilities and obligations incurred after December 31, 2016 in the ordinary course of business that are not material and (ii) obligations under contracts made in the ordinary course of business that would not be required to be reflected in financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as applied in the United States, consistently applied for the periods covered thereby (“ GAAP ”). The financial statements of the Company delivered to the Buyers on or prior to the Execution Date are a correct and complete copy of the audited financial statements (including, in each case, any related notes thereto) of the Company and its Subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and the quarter ended March 31, 2017, which have been filed with the SEC (the “ Financial Statements ”), and such statements fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the Company and its Subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, at the respective dates thereof and the results of its operations and cash flows for the periods indicated. The Financial Statements do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, except as disclosed on Schedule 3(k) .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: "include but not limited to” and "etc.” (Def. Opp. at 8:15-9:3; Aug.2000 Mot. at 3:11-16, 8:8-9:11). Defendants’ final argument that the Government was not misled by the non-inclusion of I & M does not impact whether the statement was, nevertheless, false. Rather, if true, this factor would go towards the materiality of the statement or damages. Thus, this argument will be discussed later in section II.D.3 of this Order. 20 . To the extent that Plaintiff bases her claim on 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2), it should be noted that there is a "double falsehood” requirement. See United States ex rel. Franklin v. Parke-Davis, 2003 WL 22048255, *1 (D.Mass. Aug. 22, 2003); see also United States ex rel. Bustamante v. United Way/Crusade of Mercy, Inc., 2000 WL 690250, *4 (N.D.Ill. May 24, 2000) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in addition to the elements of a prima Options: A. holding that the elements of a claim under 3729a2 are 1 that the defendant made used or caused to be made or used a record or statement to get a claim against the united states paid or approved 2 the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent and 3 the defendant knew that the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent emphasis added B. holding that both lanham act false advertising claim and a false advertising claim made under section 349 or section 350 require a showing that the advertisement was false or misleading C. holding that for a section 10b violation the sec must prove that the defendant in connection with the purchase or sale of securities made a materially false statement or omitted a material fact with scienter and that the plaintiffs reliance on the defendants action caused injury to the plaintiff D. holding that a conviction for an offense involving dishonesty or false statement may be used to impeach the credibility of a defendant who chooses to testify E. holding that a statement is not prepared in anticipation of litigation unless either the defendant had retained counsel or plaintiffs counsel had notified the defendant or his insurer of his retention before the statement was made emphasis added

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the elements of a claim under 3729a2 are 1 that the defendant made used or caused to be made or used a record or statement to get a claim against the united states paid or approved 2 the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent and 3 the defendant knew that the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent emphasis added
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 hold that the court could exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims, the court set forth, in detail, the administrative procedures that the CSRA afforded to each of the three plaintiffs. See 73 F.3d at 31-32. The court expressly recognized that, “[i]nstead of pursuing these remedies, the appellants filed an action in district court.” See id. at 32. Nonetheless, the court held that the employees could proceed with their claims in the district court. Mitchum thus stands for the proposition that if jurisdiction exists in the federal courts to hear a federal employee’s constitutional claim for equitable reliéf, the employed is not required to first pursue whatever remedies the CSRA affords before bringing that claim to the district court. See Irizarry, 427 F.3d at 79 n. 4 (<HOLDING>). Elgin did not disturb this aspect of Mitchum, Options: A. recognizing that mitchum deviates from those courts that require administrative exhaustion B. recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a 1983 action C. recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different D. holding that courts have consistently required exhaustion of administrative remedies under foia E. holding that a courts authority to require exhaustion of administrative remedies in actions brought under the apa is limited when neither the statute nor agency rules specifically mandate exhaustion as a prerequisite to judicial review

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that mitchum deviates from those courts that require administrative exhaustion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The party receiving Confidential Information (the “Receiving Party”) shall not disclose Confidential Information to any third party without the prior written consent of the party disclosing such confidential information (the “Disclosing Party”) and shall restrict dissemination of Confidential Information within its own organization to those employees who have a need to have access to the 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: frequency, and intensity of the use may change over time to take advantage of developments in technology and to accommodate normal development of the dominant estate or enterprise benefited by the servitude.” Restatement (Third) of Property, Servitudes § 4.10, § 4.10 cmt. f (2000) (explaining that the policy underlying this rule is that “it permits servitudes to retain their utility over time and probably reflects the expectations of the parties who create servitudes of indefinite duration”); see also Skow v. Goforth, 618 N.W.2d 275, 278 (Iowa 2000) (deed that granted “right-of-way to drive teams” over land “must be interpreted to allow ingress and egress for modern vehicular traffic, including farm tractors and implements”); Hodgkins v. Bianchini, 80 N.E.2d 464, 467 (Mass. 1948) (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted). In addition to this Options: A. holding that injuries must be connected to the use of the car as a car ie as a means of transportation rather than a situs for the commission of criminal acts B. holding that seven years of public use is sufficient to constitute acceptance of an rs 2477 right of way as opposed to the ten years required for an easement by prescription on the ground that it is not a matter of prescription but of acceptance of a grant C. holding that patents to lands over which rights of way created under 1875 act passed conveyed the servient estate in the right of way D. holding that grant of a cart road did not restrict use of easement to horsedrawn vehicles but rather created a general right of way for vehicles and stating that we should be very slow to hold that even ancient rights of way not expressly restricted as to the type of vehicle could not be employed at all for the means of transportation in common use by a succeeding generation E. holding that mere use of a road will not make a road a public road even though such use is with the knowledge and consent of the landowner unless the use is accompanied by recognition by public authority or by its maintainance sic

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that grant of a cart road did not restrict use of easement to horsedrawn vehicles but rather created a general right of way for vehicles and stating that we should be very slow to hold that even ancient rights of way not expressly restricted as to the type of vehicle could not be employed at all for the means of transportation in common use by a succeeding generation
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: Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, capitalized terms used in this Amendment, which are defined in the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby (the “ Amended Credit Agreement ”), shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Credit Agreement. The interpretive provisions set forth in Section 1.02 of the Credit Agreement shall apply to this Amendment.

assistant: Definitions
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) keep and maintain all property material to the conduct of its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and (b) maintain, with financially sound and reputable insurance companies, insurance in such amounts and against such risks as are customarily maintained by companies engaged in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations. The Borrower will cause each of its Subsidiaries to (a) except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, keep and maintain all property material to the conduct of its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and (b) maintain, with financially sound and reputable insurance companies, insurance in such amounts and against such risks as are customarily maintained by companies engaged in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations.

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 singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. The word “or” is not exclusive and the word “including” is not limiting. References to a law include any rule or regulation issued under the law and any amendment to the law, rule or regulation. Unless otherwise indicated, references to a Section or Exhibit mean a Section or Exhibit contained in or attached to this Agreement. The caption headings in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and do not define, modify or describe the scope or intent of any of the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement will be interpreted and enforced in accordance with its provisions and without the aid of any custom or rule of law requiring or suggesting construction against the party drafting or causing the drafting of the provisions in question.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: include the element that elevates the crime to a higher level.” As we noted in State v. Bean, 153 N.H. 380 (2006), “[i]n Glanville, the State, although not required to do so under Johnson, attempted to charge the defendant with a specific variant of the crime allegedly attempted, but failed to accurately set forth that variant in the indictment.” Bean, 153 N.H. at 384; see Johnson, 144 N.H. at 178. Indeed, Glanville recognized that all that was required “[t]o charge the defendant with attempted armed robbery, class A felony, [was for] the indictment ... to allege that the defendant (1) with a purpose to commit armed robbery, (2) committed acts constituting a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.” Glanville, 145 N.H. at 634 (emphasis added); cf. Casanova, 164 N.H. at 566 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the indictment in this case 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 an employer who caused his agent to commit a crime in another county was deemed to have been personally present where the crime occurred C. holding that firstdegree murder is one crime although the defendant can commit the crime in several ways D. recognizing that entrapment is a statutory defense rooted in the notion that congress could not have intended to criminally punish those who commit elements of crime but are induced by the government to commit the acts and that outrageous conduct defense is rooted in constitutional law E. holding that an individual cannot attempt to commit murder of the second or third degree because the crime of attempt is a specific intent crime and an attempt to commit second or third degree murder would require proof that the individual intended to perpetrate an unintentional killing which is logically impossible

assistant: The best answer is 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
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: Stewart Title Guar. Co., 822 S.W.2d at 11 (quoting Flint & Assoc. v. Intercont’l Pipe & Steel, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 622, 624-25 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied)). Here, when the Esses placed Westgate in bankruptcy after suit had been filed against them by Empire and BP, all causes of action in this lawsuit against Westgate’s corporate fiduciaries and for improper use and transfer of its assets became the property of the bankruptcy trustee, Havis, and subject to collection by him. See 11 U.S.C.A. § 548(a)(1) (West 2004 & Supp. 2010) (empowering trustee to avoid fraudulent transfers); § 704(a)(1) (West Supp. 2010) (requiring trustee to “collect and reduce to money the property of the estate for which such trustee serves”); La. World Expo. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 858 F.2d 233, 246 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Havis authorized the continuation of the suit Options: A. holding that trustee is bound to assert cause of action pursuant to section 704a if doing so would maximize value of estate B. holding lost future wages recovered pursuant to a prepetition cause of action are property of the estate C. recognizing the cause of action D. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee E. recognizing cause of action

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trustee is bound to assert cause of action pursuant to section 704a if doing so would maximize value of estate
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument . Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail or other transmission method and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law , in no event shall crowdtangle , facebook , its affiliates , agents , directors , employees , suppliers or licensors ( `` crowdtangle parties '' ) be liable for any indirect , punitive , incidental , special , consequential or exemplary damages , including without limitation damages for loss of profits , goodwill , use , data or other intangible losses , arising out of or relating to the use of , or inability to use , these services .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive acknowledges that a breach or threatened breach by Executive of Section 7, Section 8 or Section 9 of this Agreement will give rise to irreparable injury to the Company and that money damages will not be adequate relief for such injury and, accordingly, Executive agrees that the Company shall be entitled to obtain equitable relief, including, but not limited to, temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and/or permanent injunctions, without having to post any bond or other security, to restrain or prohibit such breach or threatened breach, in addition to any other legal remedies which may be available, including the recovery of money damages. In addition to all other relief to which it shall be entitled, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party all litigation costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the prevailing party in any action or proceeding relating to Section 7, Section 8 and/or Section 9 of this Agreement in which the prevailing party prevails in any respect, including, without limitation, any action in which the prevailing party seeks enforcement of Section 7, Section 8 and/or Section 9 of this Agreement or seeks relief from the non-prevailing party’s violation of Section 7, Section 8 and/or Section 9 of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Employment Period, the Employee shall receive a base salary at a rate of $180,000 per annum, which shall be paid in accordance with the customary payroll practices of the Company, and shall be subject to review on an annual basis as determined by the Board or a committee thereof (the “ Base Salary ”). The Employee’s Base Salary shall not be subject to decrease, other than a reduction which is part of a general cost reduction approved by the Board affecting other similarly situated employees and which does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the Employee’s then Base Salary when combined with any such prior reductions.

assistant: Base Salary