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: Order of Police indicated that the police department was discriminating against religiously motivated requests to grow beards, the Borough’s invocation of the often-dormant Ordinance 691 against conduct motivated by Orthodox Jewish beliefs is “sufficiently suggestive of discriminatory intent,” Fraternal Order of Police, 170 F.3d at 365, that we must apply strict scrutiny. See Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 546, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The Borough nonetheless contends thai three aspects of this case-the plaintiffs use of government property, the lack of e "substantial burden" on the plaintiffs' religious freedom, and the "optional" nature of the eruv-place it outside the framework of Lukumi and iple is that “ ‘the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the 002) (<HOLDING>); cf. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. Options: A. holding that discrimination based on religion is subjected to strict scrutiny whether a claim arises under the establishment clause the free exercise clause of equal protection clause B. holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment C. holding that free exercise clause bars state from making college scholarships contingent on recipients not majoring in theology D. holding that free exercise clause prohibits state from devaluing religious reasons for seeking unemployment benefits E. holding that free exercise clause did not require government to grant religious exemption from generally applicable religionneutral statutory requirement that welfare recipients furnish their social security numbers where no individualized exemptions were allowed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that free exercise clause bars state from making college scholarships contingent on recipients not majoring in theology
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: was no manifest necessity to declare the mistrial, and no express or implied consent to the mistrial by the defendant, we perceive no exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause’s requirement that an individual may not be subjected “to hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense.” Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187, 78 S.Ct. 221, 223, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957). We have considered all arguments presented by the parties and conclude that no further discussion is necessary. The judgment of the district court will be affirmed. 1 . New Jersey relies on "manifest necessity” because the phrase "ends of public justice” is not applicable to the facts of this case. See Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 468-471, 93 S.Ct. 1066, 1072-1074, 35 L.Ed.2d 425 (1973) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The district court, without discussion, Options: A. holding claim of alleged brady violation waived on collateral appeal for failure to raise it at trial or on direct appeal B. holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal C. holding that even when the issue is constitutional in nature an argument is not preserved on appeal unless the appellant raised and made the argument at trial and obtained a ruling on it nor will a particular theory be addressed on appeal if it was not presented below D. holding that the ends of public justice justify a mistrial where the trial contains a defect such that a conviction if obtained could be upset at will on appeal or in collateral proceedings E. holding that direct appeal from subsequent conviction is the proper context in which to seek review of trial courts ruling declaring mistrial over defendants objection at previous trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the ends of public justice justify a mistrial where the trial contains a defect such that a conviction if obtained could be upset at will on appeal or in collateral proceedings
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: (“Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances, which requires a reviewing court to examine relevant factors as a collective whole rather than independent pieces.”); United States v. Staples, 194 F.Supp.2d 582, 585 (W.D.Tex.2002) (“[T]he recent opinion in Arvizu emphasized that a court may not evaluate the factors in isolation of each other. Rather, the ‘totality of the circumstances’ approach requires the court to consider the officer’s observations and inferences as a comprehensive picture of the situation that, as a whole, may or may not justify reasonable suspicion.”). “No single fact is determinative” of the outcome of a reasonable suspicion analysis. United States v. Guerrero-Barajas, 240 F.3d 428, 433 (5th Cir.2001); Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 266,122 S.Ct. 744 (<HOLDING>); Staples, 194 F.Supp.2d at 585 (“[A] court may Options: A. holding that it is improper to categorize certain factors as simply out of bounds in deciding whether there was reasonable suspicion for the stop B. holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop C. holding this framework applies whether the traffic stop is based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion D. recognizing that a district attorney must have reasonable latitude in fairly presenting a case to the jury and that the trial judge must have reasonable discretion in deciding whether the bounds of propriety have been exceeded E. holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that it is improper to categorize certain factors as simply out of bounds in deciding whether there was reasonable suspicion for the stop
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: S.Ct. 2568, 37 L.Ed.2d 619] (1973)[; see also] Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 462-463 [58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 14611(1938).... Id. at 188-89 L104 S.Ct. 2292], State v. McWhorter, No. M2004-02804-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 3332755, at *6 (Tenn.Crim. App. Dec.6, 2005). In Tennessee, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches with the initiation of criminal charges through an arrest warrant, a preliminary hearing (if no arrest warrant is issued), or an indictment or presentment (when the charge is initiated by the grand jury). State v. Mitch spect's question “it ain’t possible that I could have a lawyer?” "did not articulate his request for counsel with such clarity that a reasonable police officer would believe his statement to be a request for an attorney”); Osborne, 2007 WL 1890176, at *9 (<HOLDING>). 9 . The Ninth Circuit also observed, as we Options: A. holding that accuseds request for counsel was equivocal when he read the statement on the miranda waiver form i do not want a lawyer at this time immediately said yes i do then read the remainder of the form aloud and signed the waiver of rights B. holding that whether waiver form satisfied miranda was immaterial because of the adequacy of the subsequent oral warning C. holding that the failure to sign a miranda form in full does not necessarily invalidate the waiver D. holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection E. holding suspects contradictory answers on miranda waiver form that he would answer questions without an attorney and that he wanted to talk to a lawyer to be ambiguous

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that accuseds request for counsel was equivocal when he read the statement on the miranda waiver form i do not want a lawyer at this time immediately said yes i do then read the remainder of the form aloud and signed the waiver of rights
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 will be governed by the laws of the State of Texas, without regard for conflict of law provisions. Any litigation arising out of or relating to this Amendment shall be filed and pursued exclusively in the state or federal courts in Travis County, Texas, and the parties hereto consent to the jurisdiction of and venue in such courts.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: members of the Committee that the deterrent value of the State’s drunk driving laws could be ... affected if the current exclusion of drunk driving cases were to be eliminated. Thus, the clear consensus of the Committee was that the present exclusion should continue, subject only to the unilateral actions of the municipal prosecutor with regard to dismissals and amendments____ [Final Report at 28-30.] The Court’s intention in upholding this ban can therefore be seen as an effectuation of the strong legislative and public policy to eliminate drunk driving, by refusing to allow drunk drivers to escape responsibility for their actions, by ensuring accountability of those who cause drunk driving, and by penalizing drinking-and-driving offenses to the fullest extent of the law. The 1984) (<HOLDING>); N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.6 (codifying law imposing Options: A. holding a social host liable for serving a visibly intoxicated guest who foreseeably becomes involved in motor vehicle accident B. holding that indianas operating while intoxicated statute which states that a person who operates a vehicle while intoxicated commits a class a misdemeanor is not limited to operation of motor vehicles on public highways C. holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle D. holding that tavern will be held liable for serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated patron who then foreseeably becomes involved in a motor vehicle accident E. holding dwi intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle in a public place is clearly not a crime of violence under 18 usc 16b

assistant: The best answer is A. holding a social host liable for serving a visibly intoxicated guest who foreseeably becomes involved in motor vehicle accident
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 522 U.S. 446118 S. Ct. 903139 L. Ed. 2d 892 LORENZO ARTEAGA v.UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT; LORENZO ARTEAGA, PETITIONER v.PETE WILSON, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL No. 97-6749 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES February 23, 1998, Decided ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS PER CURIAM. 1 Pro se petitioner Lorenzo Arteaga seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal with prejudice of petitioner's complaint for failure to amend his complaints pursuant to the District Court's instructions. 2 We deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He is allowed until March 16, 1998, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1. For the reasons discussed below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for certiorari in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1. 3 Petitioner has filed 20 petitions with this Court, 16 in the past two Terms. All have been denied without recorded dissent. In 1997, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny petitioner in forma pauperis status. Arteaga v. California, 118 S. Ct. 42, 139 L. Ed. 2d 9 (1997). Petitioner nevertheless has filed another frivolous petition with this Court. In his petition and supplemental petition, Arteaga appears to assert that he is an innocent person falsely imprisoned and to allege numerous constitutional violations and conspiracies among prison, court, and government officials. He does not address the reasons for the District Court's dismissal. 4 Accordingly, we enter this order barring prospective in forma pauperis filings by petitioner in noncriminal cases for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305, 113 S. Ct. 397 (1992). 5 It is so ordered. 6 JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting. 7 For reasons previously stated, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 4, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305, 113 S. Ct. 397 (1992), and cases cited, I respectfully dissent.

assistant: 2
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 integrates all of the terms and conditions of the parties’ agreement regarding the subordination of the Lease to the Loan Documents, attornment, nondisturbance and the other matters contained herein. If there is any conflict between the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement and those of any other agreement or instrument, including the Lease, the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. This Agreement may not be modified or amended except by a written agreement signed by the parties or their respective successors in interest. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which is an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

assistant: Integration
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 the Borrowing Parties own, or are licensed to use, all Intellectual Property necessary to conduct their business as currently conducted except for such Intellectual Property the failure of which to own or license could not result in a Material Adverse Event.

assistant: Intellectual 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: The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All expenses and liabilities incurred by the Committee in the administration and interpretation of the Plan or any Award Agreement shall be borne by the Company. The Committee may employ attorneys, consultants, accountants, or other persons in connection with the administration and interpretation of the Plan, and the Company, and its officers and directors, shall be entitled to rely upon the advice, opinions, and valuations of any such persons.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Granite Rock amend that distinc tion. Granite Rock, 130 S.Ct. at 2860 n. 9, n. 11. Instead, Granite Rock states explicitly that once a court is satisfied with the “formation of the parties’ arbitration agreement” and “the applicability of the specific arbitration clause that a party seeks to have the court enforce,” id. at 2854, reference to an arbitrator to resolve any outstanding issues is appropriate. With the district court having satisfied itself that the Exchange Agreement was a binding contract, asking the district court to assess the validity of the Exchange Agreement relative to a broader, unexecuted agreement would be an invasion of the responsibility that the Supreme Court has reserved for the arbitrator. See, e.g., Buckeye Check Cashing, 546 U.S. at 448-49, 126 S.Ct. 1204 (<HOLDING>); Benoay v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 805 Options: A. holding validity challenges to a whole contract go to the arbitrator B. holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator C. holding that whether in federal or state court a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it must go to the arbitrator and not the court D. holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator E. holding defenses concerning the contract as a whole must be referred to ah arbitrator while defenses to the arbitration provision itself are considered by the court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding validity challenges to a whole contract go to the arbitrator
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: where there is no duty owed to the plaintiff other than the duty arising out of the contract itself.” Int’l Minerals and Mining Corp. v. Citicorp N. Am., Inc., 136 F. Supp. 587, 596 (D.N.J. 1990). Here, Davis’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress arises entirely from her allegations that the Defendants breached the terms of her employment contract and thus that she is entitled to monetary compensation. Significantly, the duties that Davis alleges the Defendants owed her under that contract are identical to those she alleges in her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Consequently, Davis has failed to allege independent tortious conduct on the part of the Defendants. See, e.g., Jones v. W. Union Fin. Servs., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1100 (D. Minn. 2007) (<HOLDING>); Geico Cas. Co. v. Beauford, Civ. No. 05-697, Options: A. holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim B. recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress C. holding that the plaintiffs negligent misrepresentation and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are governed by opla D. holding that plaintiffs negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are not independent of the breach of contract claim and summary judgment is warranted on these claims E. holding that erisa 514a preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that plaintiffs negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are not independent of the breach of contract claim and summary judgment is warranted on these 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: This permit shall expire at midnight on April 29, 2056, 40 years from the date of issuance. Expiration of this permit shall not require notice, a decision document, or any environmental analysis or other documentation.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: receive a downward departure for providing substantial assistance to the government. The sentencing court did just that. It did not consider McFarlane’s extensive drug dealing history in setting his guideline range of 60 to 71 months, but did consider that history in determining whether to grant a downward departure and how much of a departure to grant. The court granted the government’s motion for a downward departure, but limited the extent of the departure based in part on McFarlane’s extensive drug dealing history. Thus, the terms of McFarlane’s cooperation agreement, and correspondingly his constitutional rights, were not violated when he received at least a ten-month downward departure, based partly on testimony he gave at his code-fendants’ trial. See Luloff, 15 F.3d at 766 (<HOLDING>); Nyhuis, 8 F.3d at 742 (holding that the Options: A. holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit B. holding trial court improperly granted dismissal on ground of immunity because the defendant had qualified statutory immunity rather than absolute immunity C. holding that an immunity agreement limited to title 21 drug offenses was not violated when the defendant was charged with unlawfully possessing a gun a nondrug offense based on testimony provided pursuant to the immunity agreement D. holding that in the absence of explicit language to the contrary an informal immunity agreement confers the minimum immunity required by the constitution E. holding that dismissal pursuant to a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity is with prejudice

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an immunity agreement limited to title 21 drug offenses was not violated when the defendant was charged with unlawfully possessing a gun a nondrug offense based on testimony provided pursuant to the immunity agreement
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall be responsible for the payment of any placement agent’s fees, financial advisory fees, transfer agent fees, the costs associated with any legal opinions required to be rendered to the Company’s transfer agent in connection with the lifting of any legends on the Securities, DTC fees or broker’s commissions (other than for Persons engaged by any Subscriber) relating to or arising out of the transactions contemplated hereby. The Company (subject to the foregoing qualification) shall pay, and hold each Subscriber harmless against, any liability, loss or expense (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket expenses) arising in connection with any claim relating to any such payment. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company will not be responsible for the costs associated with any legal opinions required to be rendered to the Company’s transfer agent in connection with the lifting of any legends on the Securities.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE GOVERNED BY, CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA (INCLUDING ANY RIGHTS TO SPECIFIC RELIEF PROVIDED FOR UNDER NEVADA STATUTES), WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES THEREOF. THE PARTIES HEREBY WARRANT AND REPRESENT THAT THE SELECTION OF NEVADA LAW AS GOVERNING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT (I) HAS A REASONABLE NEXUS TO EACH OF THE PARTIES AND TO THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THE AGREEMENT; AND (II) DOES NOT OFFEND ANY PUBLIC POLICY OF NEVADA, FLORIDA, OR OF ANY OTHER STATE, FEDERAL, OR OTHER JURISDICTION.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: citations imposed upon Releo. The operative word in the statute is “for,” as it signals when a licensed electrician is needed. As it is written, a licensed electrician is required to install any conduit when the purpose of such conduit is “for carrying * * * electricity[.]” Section 5-6-2 (emphasis added). Clearly, the PVC conduit in this case was not to be used for the passage of air or water, but specifically for the carrying of electrical conductors and electricity. Further, we agree with the hearing justice that the petitioners’ argument—that the PVC conduit in question did not fall under § 5-6-2 because no wires or conductors were present within the PVC conduit itself—would reduce the term conduit in the statute to “mere surplusage.” In re Harrison, 992 A.2d 990, 994 (R.I.2010) (<HOLDING>). The substantial record developed below Options: A. holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained B. holding phrase based upon or attributable to is not ambiguous and rejecting secondary suit construction C. holding that construction that neutralizes any provision of a contract should not be adopted if the contract can be construed to give effect to all provisions D. holding that a statute must be construed so that no part of the statute is rendered surplusage or superfluous internal quotation marks and citation omitted E. holding that no construction of a statute should be adopted that would demote any significant phrase or clause to mere surplusage quoting state v clark 974 a2d 558 572 ri 2009

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that no construction of a statute should be adopted that would demote any significant phrase or clause to mere surplusage quoting state v clark 974 a2d 558 572 ri 2009
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: 1.3 the licensor reserves the right to change , suspend , remove or disable access to the service at any time without notice .

assistant: Unilateral change, Unilateral termination
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: There are no actions, suits, arbitrations, investigations or proceedings pending or, to its knowledge, threatened against such Seller Party or Servicer or any of its Subsidiaries or Affiliates or affecting any of the property thereof before any Governmental Authority, (i) as to which individually or in the aggregate there is a reasonable likelihood of an adverse decision which would be reasonably likely to have a Material Adverse Effect, (ii) which questions the validity or enforceability of any of the Program Documents or any action to be taken in connection with the transactions contemplated thereby, or (iii) which seeks to prevent the consummation of any Transaction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Shingle Bureau, 997 F.2d at 622 (internal quotation and citation omitted). The district court concluded that the determinative state law issue in this case is whether MERLO is preempted by state law because it duplicates or contradicts HSAA. Fireman’s Fund, 41 F.Supp.2d at 1112-13. The district court ultimately found that because “California courts have not spoken definitively in this matter,” the third Pullman factor has been satisfied. Id. at 1113. Again, we respectfully disagree. The fact that a state court has not ruled on the precise issue at stake in this case does not mean that the proper resolution of the state law issue is “uncertain.” Constantineau, 400 U.S. at 439, 91 S.Ct. 507; see also Pearl Invest. Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 774 F.2d 1460, 1465 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). On the contrary, California has left several Options: A. holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide B. holding that uncertainty for pullman abstention means that a federal court cannot predict with any confidence how a states highest court would decide an issue of state law C. holding that a federal court must decide an issue regarding the interpretation of a state law according to its anticipation of how the highest state court would hold D. holding that a federal court sitting in diversity must predict how a state court would decide an issue E. holding that when highest court of state has not decided particular issue of substantive law federal court faced with this issue in diversity must make an erie guess as to how highest court would rule

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that uncertainty for pullman abstention means that a federal court cannot predict with any confidence how a states highest court would decide an issue of state law
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 ”) is entered into as of June 2, 2016, by and among OXFORD FINANCE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with an office located at 133 North Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (“ Oxford ”), as collateral agent (in such capacity, “ Collateral Agent ”), the Lenders listed on the signature pages hereto (each a “ Lender ” and collectively, the “ Lenders ”) including Oxford in its capacity as a Lender and SILICON VALLEY BANK, a California corporation with an office located at 3003 Tasman Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054 (“Bank” or “SVB”), immediately prior to the Borrower Change in Name (defined below), MIRAMAR LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“ Miramar ”), immediately after the Borrower Change in Name, MIRAMAR TECHOLOGIES, INC. (“ Miramar Technologies ” and, together with Miramar, the “ Borrower ”) with offices located at 2790 Walsh Ave., Santa Clara, CA 95051.

assistant: Consents
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: if you are between the ages of 14 and 18 , you or your legal representative may cancel the applicable sales contract created pursuant to under amour shopping if your legal representative has not consented to such sales contract .

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: denied on discretion.” Id. at 2 n. 2. To determine whether we have jurisdiction, we examine the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals rather than the Immigration Judge. See Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080, 1083 (10th Cir.2007). The Board provided two reasons for dismissing the appeal: Mr. Girard-Lara was ineligible, and the agency should deny adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. The resulting issue is whether we have jurisdiction to address both rationales. If we lack jurisdiction over either rationale, we must dismiss the appeal. We lack jurisdiction over the Board’s second rationale (agency discretion). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; Sosa-Valenzuela v. Holder, 692 F.3d 1103, 1115 (10th Cir.2012); see also Ekasinta v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Discretionary decisions are reviewable when Options: A. holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings B. holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter C. holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling D. holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending E. holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of motion to continue to pursue adjustment of status if application to adjust status is futile

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter
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: By the issuance of a Letter of Credit (or an amendment to a Letter of Credit increasing the amount thereof) under the Revolving Facility Commitments of any Class and without any further action on the part of the applicable Issuing Bank or the Revolving Facility Lenders, such Issuing Bank hereby grants to each Revolving Facility Lender under such Class, and each such Revolving Facility Lender hereby acquires from such Issuing Bank, a participation in such Letter of Credit equal to such Revolving Facility Lender’s applicable Revolving Facility Percentage of the aggregate amount available to be drawn under such Letter of Credit (calculated, in the case of Alternate Currency Letters of Credit, based on the Dollar Equivalent thereof). In consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing, each Revolving Facility Lender hereby absolutely and unconditionally agrees to pay to the Administrative Agent, for the account of the applicable Issuing Bank, in Dollars, such Revolving Facility Lender’s applicable Revolving Facility Percentage of each L/C Disbursement (or the Dollar Equivalent thereof) made by such Issuing Bank and not reimbursed by the Borrower on the date due as provided in paragraph (e) of this Section, or of any reimbursement payment required to be refunded to the Borrower for any reason (calculated, in the case of any Alternate Currency Letter of Credit, based on the Dollar Equivalent thereof). Each Revolving Facility Lender acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to acquire participations pursuant to this paragraph in respect of Letters of Credit is absolute and unconditional and shall not be affected by any circumstance whatsoever, including any amendment, renewal or extension of any Letter of Credit or the occurrence and continuance of a Default or Event of Default or reduction or termination of the Commitments or the fact that, as a result of changes in currency exchange rates, such Revolving Facility Lender’s Revolving Facility Credit Exposure at any time might exceed its Revolving Facility Commitment at such time (in which case Section 2.11(c) would apply), and that each such payment shall be made without any offset, abatement, withholding or reduction whatsoever.

assistant: Participations
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 constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties, which shall not be modified except by writing signed by the Parties. Neither Party has made any representations to the other except as specifically set forth herein or in the APA.

assistant: Modifications
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 contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, oral or written, with respect to such matters, which the parties acknowledge have been merged into such documents, exhibits and schedules. At or after the Closing, and without further consideration, the Company will execute and deliver to the Investor such further documents as may be reasonably requested in order to give practical effect to the intention of the parties hereunder.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: subject to forfeiture, without regard to the location of that property. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000). The Williams action, also an in person-am suit, was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to that court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1332 (2000). The Receiver for NHLIC brought suit against persons and entities, not property, seeking recovery of funds believed to have been stolen from NHLIC. The fact that the court in Williams is exercising control over the proceeds from the sale of the Center Mall property does not transform that suit into an in rem proceeding or alter the basis of the court’s jurisdiction. See United States v. $174,206.00 in United States Currency, 320 F.3d 658, 661 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Ill The Government contends that this Court Options: A. holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture B. holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court C. recognizing criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment D. recognizing that the hallmark of an in personam forfeiture proceeding is one where the government proceeds directly against the person E. holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture
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: attempt to amend his § 2254 petition. Williams asserted, in his § 2254 petition, that the evidence of his guilt was so weak that his conviction violated his constitutional rights, and the state responded to this claim by asserting the affirmative defense of procedural default. Williams responded to this affirmative defense by asserting that appellate counsel’s failure to argue that Williams’s conviction violated his constitutional rights constituted cause that would excuse his procedural default of ground 1. In this context, Williams’s ineffective-assistance claim did not constitute an improper attempt to amend his § 2254 petition, and the magistrate and the district court should have addressed this argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1) — (2); cf. Williams, 557 F.3d at 1289-90, 1292 (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Options: A. holding that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief B. holding that bjecause the defendant has not presented these constitutional arguments to the district court in the first instance and because the appeal waiver narrowly circumscribes what he may appeal we deem these arguments waived C. holding that arguments cannot be made for the first time in reply papers D. holding that the district court possessed discretion to decline to review the 2254 petitioners arguments responding to the states assertion that his petition was untimely because the 2254 petitioner raised these arguments for the first time in his objections to the magistrate judges report and recommendation and failed to assert these arguments in a reply to the states response despite the fact that he was ordered to raise these arguments in a reply E. holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the district court possessed discretion to decline to review the 2254 petitioners arguments responding to the states assertion that his petition was untimely because the 2254 petitioner raised these arguments for the first time in his objections to the magistrate judges report and recommendation and failed to assert these arguments in a reply to the states response despite the fact that he was ordered to raise these arguments in a reply
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: (2006). The Minnesota Supreme Court has generally “agreed with the [United States] Supreme Court that most constitutional errors can be harmless.” State v. Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d 238, 252 (Minn.2005) (quotation omitted); see State v. Shoen, 598 N.W.2d 370, 376 (Minn.1999) (stating that the United States Supreme Court has applied harmless-error analysis even to errors deemed presumptively prejudicial, such as a court official’s improper statements about the merits of a case in front of the jury). The Minnesota Supreme Court has also applied the structural-error analysis set forth in Fulminante, Neder, and Recuenco to determine that certain errors constitute structural errors’requiring automatic reversal without regard to the evidence presented. See, e.g., State v. Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d at 253 (<HOLDING>); State v. Moore, 699 N.W.2d 733, 737-38 Options: A. holding that a jury instruction directing the verdict on one element deprived defendant of the right to a jury determination on every element of the charged offense and thus constituted structural error B. holding that the judges entry into the jury room constituted reversible error C. holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report D. holding that the judges independent investigation into a factual assertion and revelation of the results of that investigation to counsel deprived defendant of his right to an impartial judge and finder of fact and thus constituted structural error E. holding that a new york statute allowing judges in a criminal bench trial to deny counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument deprived defendant of his sixth amendment right to the assistance of counsel

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the judges independent investigation into a factual assertion and revelation of the results of that investigation to counsel deprived defendant of his right to an impartial judge and finder of fact and thus constituted structural error
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: Performance Guarantor shall keep in full force and effect its existence and rights as a corporation under the laws of the State of Nevada, and shall obtain and preserve its qualification to do business in each jurisdiction in which such qualification is or shall be necessary to protect the validity and enforceability of this Performance Guaranty, the other Transaction Documents and the Support Assets except to the extent the failure to maintain such qualification could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Existence
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: Douglas analysis to her claim of discriminatory removal as principal, it concluded that Pleener had failed to adduce evidence that defendant’s proffered nondiseriminatory reason for her removal was pretextual and that the real reason for her removal was racial bias. We disagree. While Pleener disputes the merits of the Board’s view of (1) the deteriorating state of affairs at Beach Channel High School, (2) Pleener’s role in that deterioration, and (3) her inability to provide the leadership necessary to restore stability, she failed to adduce any evidence that the Board did not sincerely hold that view or that otherwise would permit a factfinder to conclude that the Board’s real reason for removing her was her race. See Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 44 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 12 Options: A. holding that even if plaintiff could demonstrate that failed drug test proffered by defendant as ground for dismissal was in error that showing would not demonstrate that reliance on test was pretext for discrimination B. holding that the plaintiffs assessment of the candidates qualifications cannot demonstrate a pretext for discrimination C. holding the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate the error satisfies each prong of the plain error test D. holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error E. holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that even if plaintiff could demonstrate that failed drug test proffered by defendant as ground for dismissal was in error that showing would not demonstrate that reliance on test was pretext for discrimination
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: Consultant shall submit to the Company a reasonably detailed invoice for any expenses incurred as set forth in Section 4 of this Exhibit A above. Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant’s invoice, payment will be made by the Company for all non-disputed invoices.

assistant: Payments