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: The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and accrue to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to or shall confer upon any person or entity, other than Tellurian, Total and the Stockholders, any right, benefit or remedy of any nature whatsoever under or by reason of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any Performance Units vest subsequent to any change in the number or character of the Common Stock of the Company (through any dividend (other than a regular cash dividend) or other distribution (whether in the form of cash, Common Stock, other securities or other property), recapitalization, stock split, reverse stock split, reorganization, merger, consolidation, split‑up, spin‑off, combination, repurchase or exchange of shares, or otherwise), Participant shall be deemed to have earned upon such vesting the number of Performance Units, if any, which Participant would have earned if such Performance Units had vested prior to the event changing the number or character of the outstanding Common Stock. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a Change in Control in connection with which the holders of Common Stock receive consideration consisting solely of shares of common stock that are registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, then for purposes of the determination of the amount payable in accordance with Exhibit A , (i) the aggregate number and class of shares into which each outstanding share of Common Stock was converted pursuant to such Change in Control will be substituted for the number of Performance Units subject to this Award Agreement, and (ii) the Compensation Committee shall adjust the Ending Value to appropriately reflect the adjustment provided for in the preceding sentence.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: for any claim where the potential award is reasonably likely to be $ 10,000 or less , either you or duolingo may elect to have the dispute resolved through non-appearance-based arbitration .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and McIntyre’s testimony is cast into doubt by the absence of the key statement in his police report from that day. The Court does not determine whether McIntyre’s testimony or Stephens’ notes are credible; instead, it merely finds that they are not overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that Deskovic made the ejaculation statement. Thus, the Court concludes that a genuine issue of material fact exists, and summary judgment is therefore inappropriate. See Ricciuti 124 F.3d at 130 (“Here, a reasonable jury could find, based on the evidence, that [defendants] violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights by conspiring to fabricate and forward to prosecutors a known false confession almost certain to influence a jury’s verdict.”); see also Jocks, 316 F.3d at 138 (<HOLDING>). 2. Qualified Immunity Stephens also argues Options: A. holding prior testimony was admissible where the witness who first testified during a suppression hearing was murdered after he testified where the defendant was represented by counsel who had extensively crossexamined the witness B. 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 C. holding mistrial not warranted for improper statement by police officer where court sustained defendants objection and admonished jury to disregard statement and where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt D. holding that summary judgment was inappropriate where plaintiff testified that statement written by defendant was false and defendant testified that statement was verbatim and accurate because although there was certainly not overwhelming evidence of falsification a reasonable jury would be entitled to credit plaintiffs testimony and reject defendants E. holding that defendants false statement was material even though the grand jury was not certain that the defendant had lied until several weeks later when three witnesses testified contrary to the defendant

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that summary judgment was inappropriate where plaintiff testified that statement written by defendant was false and defendant testified that statement was verbatim and accurate because although there was certainly not overwhelming evidence of falsification a reasonable jury would be entitled to credit plaintiffs testimony and reject defendants
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 absence of contrary agree ir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 834, 97 S.Ct. 98, 50 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976) (U.C.C. § 2-401 “specifically limits the seller’s ability to reserve title once he has voluntarily surrendered possession to the buyer”); Hancock v. Renshaw (In re Renshaw), 421 B.R. 738 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.2009) (affirming bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the seller was limited to a security interest in a sewing machine delivered to the debtor even though th g Co. (In re Pro Page Partners, LLC), 270 B.R. 221, 233-34 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.2001) (finding that a purported management agreement was a disguised financing arrangement, and holding that the reservation of title in goods possessed by the debtor was limited in effect to the reservation of a security interest under U.C.C. (Idaho App.1986) (<HOLDING>); O’Dell v. Kunkel’s, Inc., 581 P.2d 878, 881 Options: A. holding that the retention of title pursuant to a repurchase agreement limits the seller to the reservation of a security interest under ucc 2401 B. holding that closelyheld stock is a security under chapter 8 of californias ucc C. holding security interest in insurance premiums perfected by creation of security interest D. holding that with respect to owners summaryjudgment claims against subsequent buyers under ucc 24011 owners reservation of title in himself was limited in effect to reservation of security interest and that failure of owner to perfect his security interest made it subordinate under ucc 9 301lc to rights of buyer not in ordinary course of business E. holding that subrogation rights are not security interests under ucc article 9

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that with respect to owners summaryjudgment claims against subsequent buyers under ucc 24011 owners reservation of title in himself was limited in effect to reservation of security interest and that failure of owner to perfect his security interest made it subordinate under ucc 9 301lc to rights of buyer not in ordinary course of business
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 Parent REIT and its Subsidiaries have conducted their businesses in compliance with the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, the UK Bribery Act 2010, and other similar anti‑corruption legislation in other jurisdictions, and have instituted and maintained policies and procedures designed to promote and achieve compliance with such laws.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the Hamm Building was fully occupied and it wanted no additional restaurants, that a new lessee occupied the “only available and appropriate spot” on 7th Place, and that “[njothing of a size to relocate [the] business was available.” McGovern stated that to locate the business beyond the “one and one half block radius would have resulted in irreparable harm” to the business. The record shows that McGovern considered purchasing existing businesses in White Bear Lake and Stillwater, and ultimately ended up purchasing an existing restaurant in Willernie. We cannot say, on this record, that such relocation eliminates any fact issue regarding the second Schutt element, namely whether Shannon Kelly’s business cannot be relocated with no irreparable harm to its business. See id. (<HOLDING>). Merely because McGovern could operate a new Options: A. holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate B. holding that the district court erred when it failed to consider the presumption of irreparable harm C. recognizing irreparable harm interpreted as meaning goingconcern value cannot exist apart from the location D. holding that monetary damages do not generally constitute irreparable harm E. holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing irreparable harm interpreted as meaning goingconcern value cannot exist apart from the location
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, together with the Confidentiality Agreement, any handbooks, policies and procedures in effect from time to time and the applicable stock plans and any stock option agreements, restricted stock unit agreements or other agreement evidencing the equity awards made to you from time to time during your period of employment (including, without limitation, the RSU Award), contains all of the terms of your employment with the Company and supersede any prior understandings or agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, whether oral or written, between or among you, United Online and the Company. Nothing herein shall affect any written indemnification agreement between you and the Company or any of its affiliates in effect on the date hereof. If any provision of this Agreement is held by an arbitrator or a court of competent jurisdiction to conflict with any federal, state or local law, or to be otherwise invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be construed in a manner so as to maximize its enforceability while giving the greatest effect as possible to the intent of the parties. To the extent any provision cannot be construed to be enforceable, such provision will be deemed to be eliminated from this Agreement and of no force or effect, and the remainder of this Agreement will otherwise remain in full force and effect and be construed as if such portion had not been included in this Agreement. This Agreement is not assignable by you. This Agreement may be assigned by the Company to its affiliates or to successors in interest to the Company or its lines of business.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The closing of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the “ Closing ”) shall take place at the offices of Porter Hedges LLP, 1000 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, commencing at 9:00 a.m. local time the fifth (5 th ) Business Day after all conditions to Closing in Section 8.1 or Section 8.2 have been satisfied or waived, or such other date as Buyer and Seller may mutually determine (the “ Closing Date ”).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Effective Date (defined below), notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7(a)(iv) of the Debenture and Section 7(a)(iv) of the Note, the Holders hereby consent to the Company’s and the Seller’s entry into the High Wire Agreement and the High Wire Sale (collectively, the “Transaction”). The Holders further consent to the filing by Seller or any of its designees of a partial release with the Delaware and New York Secretaries of State on form UCC-3 (which shall be subject to the prior review and comment of the Holders), deleting from the collateral the Transferred Assets, as defined and described in the High Wire Agreement, upon confirmation of receipt by Holders of the Payments.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive represents and acknowledges that in executing this Agreement, Executive did not rely, and has not relied, on any oral or written representations, agreements, or communications by any of the Releasees, except as expressly contained in this Agreement. This Agreement, the Supplemental Release, the Other Obligations, the Program, and any applicable equity award or plan documents constitute the entire contract between the parties hereto with regard to the subject matter hereof. They supersede all other agreements, representations or understandings (whether oral or written and whether express or implied) which relate to the subject matter hereof; provided, however, that this Agreement does not replace or supersede or modify any existing obligation, including any Other Obligation, under applicable law or agreement regarding confidentiality, fiduciary duties, non-competition, or non-solicitation. Further, the provisions of the 2010 ACIP and Equity Plan and any applicable equity award and/or plan documents shall continue to apply.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if mailed or transmitted and confirmed by any standard form of telecommunication. Notices to the Corporation shall be given to them at Extended Stay America, Inc., 11525 N. Community House Road, Suite 100, Charlotte, North Carolina 28277, fax: (980) 335-3089; Attention: General Counsel and Corporate Secretary with a copy to Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, One New York Plaza, New York, New York 10004, Attention: Stuart Gelfond, Esq. Notices to the Sellers shall be given to Centerbridge Partners, L.P. at 375 Park Ave., New York, NY 10152, Attention: Office of the General Counsel, with copies to: legalnotices@centerbridge.com and to The Blackstone Group, L.P. at 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10154, Attention: General Counsel, (fax: (646) 253-8983).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at *15. This analysis is borne out in the present case, where an examination of Plaintiff’s failure to warn claim leads back to his reliance on a showing of inadequate labeling. Plaintiff further asserts FIFRA preemption of inadequate label and failure to warn claims does not preclude other negligence claims. We also note amicus’ complaint that our decision regarding FIFRA preemption leaves plaintiffs "remediless”. Other courts preempting failure to warn claims have allowed other negligence claims to the extent they do not rely on a showing of inadequate labeling. See, e.g., Worm II, 5 F.3d at 747-49 (permitting claims for negligent testing and research based on defective product and express warranty claims not based on EPA-mandated statements); but see Papas II, 985 F.2d at 519-20 (<HOLDING>). We need not reach the issue of preemption of Options: A. holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims B. holding that fifra preempts breach of warranty claims based on labeling C. holding fifra preempts implied warranty claims D. holding fifra preempts no commonlaw claims E. holding fifra preempts inadequate label claims but not claims for failure to warn through other channels

assistant: The best answer is C. holding fifra preempts implied warranty 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: however, is inapposite to the present case. In contrast to this ease, in Short the Claims Court found jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, not the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1505. See Short, 12 Cl.Ct. at 40 (“[Plaintiffs are suing as individuals under 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1982).”). Later, “[i]n 1989, the Claims Court denied the plaintiffs’ claim for group damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1505.” Short v. United States, 50 F.3d 994, 997 (Fed.Cir.1995) (emphasis added) (citing Order at 3-10, S es, 169 Ct.Cl. 1009, 1012-13 (1965) (finding that identification of two scattered families descended from an Indian nation was sufficient to support Claims Commission’s determination that plaintiffs constituted an identifiable group); Thompson v. United States, 122 Ct. Cl. 348, 360 (1952) (<HOLDING>). What is more, plaintiffs assert a collective Options: A. holding that tribal courts have jurisdiction to divide trust property in a divorce action when both parties are indians B. holding that indians of california could bring suit as identifiable group despite lack of formal tribal organization C. holding that indian tribes lack tribal jurisdiction over crimes committed by nonmember indians within the tribes reservation D. holding that shareholders had standing to bring derivative suit against the government but not direct suit due to lack of privity E. holding that indian tribes could only exercise criminal jurisdiction over tribal members and not other indians

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that indians of california could bring suit as identifiable group despite lack of formal tribal organization
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 hereto agrees (on behalf of itself and each of its Affiliates, directors, officers, employees and representatives) to keep confidential, in accordance with their customary procedures for handling confidential information of this nature and in accordance with safe and sound (banking, in the case of the Participant) practices, the terms of this Agreement and the other Operative Documents and, in the case of the Participant and the Agent, any non-public information supplied to it by the Borrowers pursuant to the terms of each of this Agreement, the other Operative Documents and any document, agreement or instrument delivered in connection with the foregoing, provided that nothing herein shall limit the disclosure of any such information (i) to the extent required by applicable statute, rule, regulation, rule of any applicable regulatory body (including any stock exchange), (ii) to legal counsel, auditors, bank examiners or accountants for any party hereto, in each case who agree to keep such information, the terms of this Agreement and the terms of any other Operative Document confidential, (iii) to any subsidiary, shareholder, investor (or potential investor) in or Affiliate of the Agent or Participant (and any of their respective legal counsel and other advisors), in each case who agrees to keep such information, the terms of this Agreement and the terms of any other Operative Document confidential, (iv) to any assignee (or prospective assignee) of Participant (and its legal counsel and other advisors) who agrees to keep such information, the terms of this Agreement and the terms of any other Operative Document confidential, (v) to the extent such non-public information is or becomes available in the public domain other than as a result of an authorized disclosure by any party hereto or (vi) with the prior written consent of the other parties hereto.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the extent allowed under law , linkedin and its affiliates ( and those that linkedin works with to provide the services ) ( a ) disclaim all implied warranties and representations ( e.g. warranties of merchantability , fitness for a particular purpose , accuracy of data , and noninfringement ) ; ( b ) do not guarantee that the services will function without interruption or errors , and ( c ) provide the service ( including content and information ) on an `` as is '' and `` as available '' basis .

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: All notices and other communications given or made pursuant to this Agreement shall be (a) in writing; (b) sent by (i) personal delivery or (ii) a nationally recognized overnight courier to the addresses set forth under each Shareholder’s signature on the signature pages hereto (or to such subsequent address as a Shareholder may notify the Management Shareholders by written notice pursuant to this Section 4.5 ); and (c) shall be effective upon receipt.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Trustee shall be the “Tax Unitholder” of the Company for federal, state and local income tax administrative or judicial proceedings (such administrative proceedings being referred to as a “tax audit” and such judicial proceedings being referred to as a “judicial review”) and is treated as the “tax matters partner” pursuant to Section 6231(a)(7) of the Code as in effect on November 1, 2015 (Subchapter C of Chapter 63 of the Code as in effect on November 1, 2015 referred to as the “ Current Partnership Audit Rules ”) and the “partnership representative” pursuant to Section 6223(a) of the Code as included in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (with the changes to Subchapter C of Chapter 63 of the Code as made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 referred to as the “ 2015 Budget Act Partnership Audit Rules ”). The Trustee is authorized to conduct all tax audits and judicial reviews for the Company. So long as Section 6223(c)(3) of the Current Partnership Audit Rules is in effect, upon receipt of notice from the IRS of the beginning of an administrative proceeding with respect to the Company, the Tax Unitholder shall furnish the IRS with the name, address, taxpayer identification number and profit interest of each of the Unitholders and any Assignees; provided , however , that such information is provided to the Company by the Unitholders.

assistant: General
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: equipment” — answering machine attached to a home phone extension' — qualified for the Extension Phone Exemption). Based on this authority, the Court concludes that the “intercepting equipment” used by Mother (a recording device attached to a home telephone extension) satisfies the first element of the Extension Phone Exemption. The second element requires analysis of whether Mother “was intercepting and recording the telephone calls in the ordinary course of her business as a subscriber or user of the telephone extension.” See Murdock, 63 F.3d at 1396. In the context presented — a parent recording a conversation between a minor child and a third party — this question turns largely on Mother’s motivation for intercepting the calls between Minor Children and Father. See id. (<HOLDING>); Scheib, 22 F.3d at 154 (holding that the Options: A. holding that a purchaser of a vehicle was a buyer in the ordinary course of business even though the car dealer did not provide the certificate of title at the time of the sale B. holding that the debtors deposit of funds was not in the ordinary course of business and was for the purpose of creating a setoff right for the bank C. holding that spying on ones spouse does not constitute use of an extension phone in the ordinary course of business for purposes of title iii D. holding outside context of recording of a minor childs phone conversations that a telephone extension used without authorization or consent to surreptitiously record a private telephone conversation is not used in the ordinary course of business E. holding that the use of excessive force does not constitute a prison condition in the ordinary sense of the term

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that spying on ones spouse does not constitute use of an extension phone in the ordinary course of business for purposes of title iii
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 Award is subject to all the terms and conditions of the Tyson Foods, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms in this Restricted Stock Incentive Award Agreement (the “Award Agreement”) shall have the meaning stated in the Plan. Please see the Plan document for more information on these terms and conditions. A copy of the Plan is available upon request.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

assistant: Applicable 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: 394 Ill. 362, 68 N.E.2d 750; People ex rel. School District No. 88 v. Holland (1943), 384 Ill. 277, 51 N.E.2d 266; Almon v. American Carloading Corp. (1942), 380 Ill. 524, 44 N.E.2d 592.) Although the contrary conclusion was recently reached in Leckrone v. City of Salem (1987), 152 Ill. App. 3d 126, 503 N.E.2d 1093, we adopt the analysis of the court in National Wrecking Co. v. Midwest Terminal Corp. (1987), 164 Ill. App. 3d 621, 518 N.E.2d 193, which adheres to the holding of the Illinois Supreme Court in Almon. See also Leib v. Toulin, Inc. (1983), 113 Ill. App. 3d 707, 447 N.E.2d 900; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 362, 375 N.E.2d 522; cf. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller (1985), 472 U.S. 424, 86 L. Ed. 2d 340, 105 S. Ct. 2757 (<HOLDING>). Since no Illinois Supreme Court Rule Options: A. holding that orders overruling claims of privilege and requiring disclosure are immediately appealable as collateral orders B. holding that disclosure orders adverse to the attorneyclient privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine C. holding that the disqualification order is an issue completely independent of the merits of the action D. holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable E. holding that disqualification orders do not fall in the collateral order exception

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that disqualification orders do not fall in the collateral order exception
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: Expand, on its own or through a Subsidiary, into any line of business other than (a) those in which the Borrower or such Subsidiary is engaged as of the date hereof and (b) other lines of business related to the production of oil, gas and other hydrocarbons; or permit any material change to be made in the character of its business as conducted as of the date hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: * * * any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.” Id. at 337, 92 S.Ct. 515 (quoting 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a), repealed by Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, Pub.L. No. 99-308, § 104(b), 100 Stat. 449, 459 (1986)). 8 . The dissent takes issue with this conclusion with respect to blank guns: "[bjecause a blank gun does not (and cannot) expel a projectile and cannot readily be converted to do so, its inclusion within the definition of a firearm undercuts the majority's conclusion that a weapon must meet those requirements to constitute a firearm.” We disagree with this assertion. Blank guns can, in some circumstances, readily be converted to expel a projectile. See United States v. Mullins, 446 F.3d 750, 755, 756 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. 16,179 Molso Italian .22 Options: A. holding that witness possessed specialized knowledge so as to qualify as an expert in commercial sexual exploitation of adults and juveniles B. holding that daubert does not create a new framework for analyzing proffered expert testimony based upon technical or other specialized knowledge C. holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge D. holding that there was sufficient evidence that the defendants 22caliber starter gun could readily be converted to expel a projectile without any specialized knowledge in less than an hour and in minutes by an expert E. holding flight attendant could testify as to observation that many people hit their heads on the overhead compartment but could not give an expert opinion as to the need for a warning because the witness had no specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact the court never indicated that such specialized knowledge should be in the area of warnings

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there was sufficient evidence that the defendants 22caliber starter gun could readily be converted to expel a projectile without any specialized knowledge in less than an hour and in minutes by an expert
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: Employee recognizes that his services hereunder are of a personal, special, unique and extraordinary character and irreparable injury will result to Employer and to its business and properties in the event of any breach by Employee of any of the restrictive covenants set forth in Sections 11 and 12 (the “ Restrictive Covenants ”), and that Employee’s continued employment is predicated on the commitments undertaken by him pursuant to said Sections. In the event of any breach or threatened breach of any of the Restrictive Covenants, Employer shall be entitled to terminate Employee’s employment for Cause and, in addition to any other remedies and damages available, to obtain injunctive relief to restrain the violation of such commitments by Employee or by any person or persons acting for or with Employee in any capacity whatsoever. Any breach of the Restrictive Covenants will result in the forfeiture by Employee and all other persons acting for or with Employee in any capacity whatsoever of any and all rights to Severance Benefits, and in such event Employer shall have no further obligation to pay any amounts related thereto and shall be entitled to prompt reimbursement by Employee for any Severance Benefits already paid.

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: This Trademark Security Agreement is a Loan Document. This Trademark Security Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties on separate counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute but one and the same Trademark Security Agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Trademark Security Agreement by telefacsimile or other electronic method of transmission shall be equally as effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Trademark Security Agreement. Any party delivering an executed counterpart of this Trademark Security Agreement by telefacsimile or other electronic method of transmission also shall deliver an original executed counterpart of this Trademark Security Agreement but the failure to deliver an original executed counterpart shall not affect the validity, enforceability, and binding effect of this Trademark Security Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Bill of review plaintiffs must ordinarily plead and prove (1) a meritorious defense to the underlying cause of action, (2) which the plaintiffs were prevented from making by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposing party or official mistake, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence on their own part. Caldwell, 154 S.W.3d at 96 (citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 406-08). Bill of review plaintiffs claiming non-service, however, are relieved of two elements ordinarily required to be proved in a bill of review proceeding. Caldwell, 154 S.W.3d at 96. First, if a plaintiff was not served, constitutional due process relieves the plaintiff from the need to show a meritorious defense. Id. (citing Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 86-87, 108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Second, the plaintiff is relieved from Options: A. holding thata bill of review was unavailable where the petitioner had actual notice of a default judgment between twentyone and ninety days of the judgment but failed to utilize rule 306a B. holding that bill of review brought in wrong court constitutes collateral attack C. holding that standard for obtaining equitable bill of review did not apply to statutory bill of review in guardianship proceeding citing jones v parker 67 tex 76 3 sw 222 224 1886 D. holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights E. holding that the meritorious defense requirement in a bill of review proceeding violates due process where the bill of review plaintiff has no notice of the proceeding in which the default judgment was rendered

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the meritorious defense requirement in a bill of review proceeding violates due process where the bill of review plaintiff has no notice of the proceeding in which the default judgment was rendered
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: one half-hour after the ‘startling event’ only under extreme and continuing stress.” Davenport v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1144, 1149 (Ind.2001) (citing Yamobi v. State, 672 N.E.2d 1344, 1346-47 (Ind.1996)). Furthermore, an excited utterance can be made in response to a question so long as the statement is unrehearsed and is made under the stress of excitement from the event. Yamobi, 672 N.E.2d at 1346 (“A declaration does not lack spontaneity simply because it was an answer to a question.”); Williams v. State, 782 N.E.2d 1039, 1046 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). In addition, we have considered if the declarant is crying, appears to be under stress, is injured, or is exhibiting other physical or psychological conditions that indicate stress. See e.g., Fowler v. State, 829 N.E.2d 459, 463-64 (Ind.2005) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied, abrogated on other grounds by Options: A. holding that statements made while the declarant was in pain crying bleeding and having trouble breathing were properly admissible as excited utterances B. holding that the statements of a recently assaulted very upset and crying assault victim were excited utterances C. holding that the statements of a scared to death declarant whispering help me to police officers twenty hours after being assaulted were excited utterances D. holding that testimonial statements are subject to the requirements of the confrontation clause even if they are otherwise admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances E. holding statements qualified as excited utterances where declarant was scared and tired and her statements were in response to questions twenty hours after the event

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that statements made while the declarant was in pain crying bleeding and having trouble breathing were properly admissible as excited utterances
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 Grantee acknowledges that, regardless of any action the Company or the Grantee’s actual employer (“Employer”) takes with respect to any or all income tax, social insurance, payroll tax, fringe benefits tax, payment on account or other tax-related items related to the Grantee’s participation in the Plan and legally applicable to the Grantee (“Tax-Related Items”), the ultimate liability for all Tax-Related Items is and remains the Grantee’s responsibility and may exceed the amount actually withheld by the Company or the Employer. The Grantee further acknowledges that the Company and/or the Employer (i) make no representations or undertakings regarding the treatment of any Tax-Related Items in connection with any aspect of the Units, including the grant of the Units, the vesting of Units, the conversion of the Units into shares or the receipt of an equivalent cash payment, the subsequent sale of any shares acquired at vesting and the receipt of any dividends and/or dividend equivalents; and (ii) do not commit to and are under no obligation to structure the terms of the grant or any aspect of the Units to reduce or eliminate the Grantee’s liability for Tax-Related Items or achieve any particular tax result. Further, if the Grantee has become subject to tax in more than one jurisdiction between the Grant Date and the date of any relevant taxable event, the Grantee acknowledges that the Company and/or the Employer (or former employer, as applicable) may be required to withhold or account for Tax-Related Items in more than one jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: their allegation that the defendants were required to comply with the unsigned May 31, 2000 IEP, rather than the previous, signed February 3, 2000 IEP. At the time the plaintiffs filed this complaint, the California superior court had issued a ruling enforcing the February 3 rather than the May 31 IEP. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the California court of appeal and at the same time filed this action. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of this action under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, at the time the plaintiffs’ complaint was filed, the district court could not find in their favor on any of their claims without determining that the California superior court’s decision enforcing the February 3 IEP was wrong. Doe v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine justified Options: A. holding that the rookerfeldman doctrine forecloses federal jurisdiction when a decision in favor of a federal litigant would wholly undermine the state courts ruling B. holding that rookerfeldman bars subject matter jurisdiction where but for the statecourt judgment the plaintiff would have no claim C. holding rookerfeldman inapplicable where the district court could and did find that the plaintiffs constitutional claims had merit without also finding that the state court erred D. holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff E. holding that federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear case notwithstanding rookerfeldman doctrine where plaintiff filed federal suit while certiorari petition to new mexico supreme court was pending in similar state court action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff
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 disclosure provided to the Company regarding the Parent, its business and the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, furnished by or on behalf of Parent (including Parent’s representations and warranties set forth in this Agreement and the Parent Disclosure Schedule) are true and correct in all material respects and do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and convictions, which has been treated as an appeal in both cases. Initially, influenced by the negotiated plea, his attorney filed an Anders brief, and the State concurred that no issue was arguable in the case. This court, however, was concerned with Mr. Dixon’s position on the statute of limitations and, thus, ordered supplemental briefing. It now appears that, in charging Mr. r agree that Mr. Dixon should be discharged of this offense. On the other hand, it has offered no ready explanation as to why he would knowingly plead to an offense that was barred by the statute of limitations. The State recognizes that nothing in the record establishes a knowing and intelligent waiver of Mr. Dixon’s right to raise this defense. See generally Tucker v. State, 459 So.2d 306, 309 (Fla. 1984) (<HOLDING>). Despite our concerns, we recognize that Mr. Options: A. holding prelitigation waiver of jury trial must be made knowingly and voluntarily and courts will indulge in every reasonable presumption against a waiver of that right B. holding that the defendants guilty plea was entered into knowingly voluntarily and intelligently C. holding that jury waiver stating that it was made knowingly and voluntarily raised presumption of same and that burden was on party challenging enforceability of jury waiver to present evidence overcoming presumption D. holding that in order for a waiver of counsel to be valid the trial court must ensure that the defendants waiver of his right to counsel is done knowingly and intelligently so that the record establishes that the defendants choice is made with eyes open E. holding defendant was not entitled to jury instructions on lesserincluded offenses because his request did not constitute a waiver of the statute of limitations on those offenses such a waiver must be knowingly intelligently and voluntarily made

assistant: The best answer is E. holding defendant was not entitled to jury instructions on lesserincluded offenses because his request did not constitute a waiver of the statute of limitations on those offenses such a waiver must be knowingly intelligently and voluntarily made
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 determined by the Committee at the time of grant (or, if no rights of the Participant (or, in the case of his death, his estate) are substantially impaired, thereafter), no Performance-Based Cash Award or pro rata portion thereof shall be payable to any Participant who incurs a Termination prior to the date such Performance-Based Cash Award is paid and the Performance-Based Cash Awards only shall be deemed to be earned when actually paid.

assistant: Terminations