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: a specific date and when the contingency fees in question are still unresolved. However, neither case speaks to the dissolution of a partnership, which, under the UPA, is not bound to a specific date in the determination of value. The UPA specifically contemplates a winding up period during which the contingency fees can be resolved and become susceptible to valuation. Instantly, the contingency fees were resolved by the time of trial and thus could be valued. Therefore, Lamparski and Beasley do not apply to the current situation, and the trial court in Solo should not have relied upon those cases. Turning next to the authorities relied upon by the trial court in granting the new trial in the instant case, we examine In re Labrum & Doak, LLP, 227 p.2d 208, 820 P.2d 1248, 1251 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Hurwitz v. Padden, 581 N.W.2d 359, 361 Options: A. holding that an attorney was entitled to a quantum meruit recovery even though his oral contingency fee agreement with the client violated the ind rules of professional conduct which require a contingency fee agreement to be in writing B. holding that law firm was liable for restitution of contingency fee but not of other noncontingent fees following vacatur of judgment C. holding contingency fee cases commenced prior to dissolution are assets of the firm D. holding that contingency fee contracts are voidable where attorneys fail to comply with disciplinary rules E. holding that a law firm could intervene in a former clients action to protect its interest in its contingency fee

assistant: The best answer is C. holding contingency fee cases commenced prior to dissolution are assets of the firm
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 Buyer, the Seller, and the Seller Members agree that irreparable damage would occur if any provision of this Agreement were not performed in accordance with the terms hereof, and that the Buyer, the Seller, and the Seller Members sole remedy shall be to commence an action for specific performance of the terms hereof no later than September 1, 2017.

assistant: Specific Performance
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: statute. See, e.g., Colombo v. Stevenson, 150 N.C.App. 163, 563 S.E.2d 591, 592-94 (2002) (concluding that language that residue included “all lapsed legacies and devises, or other gifts made by this will which fail for any reason” was sufficiently clear language to express testatrix’s intent that North Carolina’s anti-lapse statute did not apply to legacies and devises which had lapsed); Estate of Salisbury, 76 Cal.App.3d 635, 143 Cal.Rptr. 81, 82-84 (1978) (concluding that language stating that “the residue of my estate, real and personal, wheresoever situate, including all failed and lapsed gifts” was a sufficiently clear expression of testatrix’s intent to render that California’s anti-lapse statute inapplicable); In re Neydorff, 193 A.D. 531, 184 N.Y.S. 551, 554 (N.Y.App.Div.1920) (<HOLDING>); In re Phelps’ Estate, 147 Iowa 323, 126 N.W. Options: A. holding that new yorks reckless conduct statute establishes a crime involving moral turpitude B. holding new yorks disclosure law unconstitutionally overbroad C. holding that the nyshrl does not waive the new yorks eleventh amendment immunity to suit in federal court D. holding that jurisdiction to hear a motion for new trial was granted by statute and could be exercised solely in accordance with the terms of the statute E. holding that in case in which testator granted the residue to specified person including lapsed legacies the legacies to testators predeceased brother and sister did not fall within new yorks antilapse statute

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in case in which testator granted the residue to specified person including lapsed legacies the legacies to testators predeceased brother and sister did not fall within new yorks antilapse statute
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: Am. Express Co. v. United States, 262 F.3d 1376, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The appellant asserts that the Court should find that the Secretary’s interpretation of section 1117 that veterans who served in Afghanistan are not eligible for the service-connection presumptions afforded in it is arbitrary and capricious because the agency did not consider all relevant factors, including the purposes for which section 1117 was originally promulgated and the fact that VA and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have both recognized that veterans who served in Afghanistan face “many if not all” of the same exposures faced by veterans who served in the other countries included in the Southwest Asia theater of operations. App. Br. at 13-17 (citing Marlow v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 146, 151 (1993) (<HOLDING>)(quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Options: A. holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable B. holding that a court reviewing an informal adjudication must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment C. holding that under the arbitrary and capricious standard this court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment D. holding that when applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review the courts role is to determine whether the plan administrators decision was completely unreasonable E. holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that under the arbitrary and capricious standard this court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment
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: against an unreasonably excessive use of deadly force in the form of Quando, a police canine. Even excluding the question of whether the police dog constituted deadly force, a jury well could find that, given the circumstances, the totality of force used— four blasts of pepper spray, slamming Smith down onto the porch, dragging him off the porch face down, ordering the ca nine to attack him three times, and the resultant dog bites and physical assaults on his body — was unreasonable. We have indeed held on past occasions that the use of lesser force could be unreasonable in the particular circumstances. See Santos, 287 F.3d at 853-54 (shoving can amount to excessive force when it is unreasonable); Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d 1125, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, Options: A. holding that forcibly removing nonviolent plaintiff from her car could be excessive force B. holding that two bursts of pepper spray to stop fighting in a cell was not considered excessive force and did not violate prisoners eighth amendment rights C. holding that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protestors was excessive force D. holding that otherwise acceptable use of pepper spray became excessive when arrestee was offering no further active resistance E. holding that bystander prisoners who were exposed to pepper spray when prison officials dispensed spray across their pod area to break up a fight were not subjected to excessive force

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protestors was excessive force
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: Upon the exercise of any Warrants, including the automatic exercise in accordance with Section 4.9 , or upon any request by a Holder, the Company shall deliver to the Warrant Agent or a requesting Holder, as applicable, a certificate of an authorized officer of the Company setting forth a true, complete and accurate listing, of all the Common Stock Deemed Outstanding as of the applicable Exercise Date or the date of such request, as applicable, and representing and warranting that such list is true, complete and accurate as of the applicable date. No Holder shall request any certificate more often than once in any thirty (30) day period.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced under the substantive laws of the State of Delaware, excluding any conflicts or choice of law rule or principle that might otherwise make this Agreement subject to the substantive law of another jurisdiction; provided that any dispute relating to the inventorship, scope, validity, enforceability or infringement of any patent right shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the patent laws of the applicable 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: within Nevada. Based on the facts alleged, the Court holds that Risinger’s employment did not arise out of Nevada. In making this determination, the Court finds the following facts relevant: Risinger is a California resident; SOC LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Nevada; SOC-SMG, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Nevada; Day & Zimmerman, Inc. is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania; and outside of a brief training stint in Nevada, SOC employed Risinger exclusively in Iraq. The mere fact that two of the SOC entities operate principally in Nevada does not make the alleged misconduct arise out of Nevada. See, e.g., Glass v. Kemper Corp., 133 F.3d 999, 1000-01 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Tidenberg v. Bidz.com, Inc., No. CV 08-5553 Options: A. holding that illinois wage law did not apply to nonresident employee who worked outside the state even though eim ployers primary place of business was in illinois B. holding illinois wage law only applied where at least some work was performed within the state C. holding that foreign corporation was not doing business in illinois and thus personal jurisdiction was lacking even though corporation had some contact with the state and maintained a registered agent here because tjhere is nothing in the illinois code of civil procedure that supports asserting in personam jurisdiction over a corporate defendant simply because the plaintiff served summons upon the defendants illinois registered agent D. holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction pursuant to 2209a2 over a defendant who was not transacting business in illinois within the meaning of 2209al because the plaintiff was a nonillinois corporation and the tort thus occurred outside of illinois E. holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that illinois wage law did not apply to nonresident employee who worked outside the state even though eim ployers primary place of business was in illinois
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: extending [the] plaintiff every reasonable inference in his favor.” Coyne v. City of Somerville, 972 F.2d 440, 442-43 (1st Cir.1992); see also Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc., 194 F.3d 185, 200 (1st Cir.1999). Plaintiffs may not, however, rely upon “unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law.” Murphy, 45 F.3d at 522 (citation omitted). IV. DISCUSSION A. Legislative Immunity Defendants seek dismissal of all claims against Speaker Finneran and President Birmingham (the “legislator defendants”) based on the legislators’ absolute immunity from legal claims for their legislative acts. “Absolute legislative immunity attaches to all actions taken in the sphere of legislative activity.” Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) (quotation omitted) (<HOLDING>). As plaintiffs accuse the legislator Options: A. holding that legislative immunity does not depend on motivation for legislative action even if the motive was to impinge on plaintiffs free speech rights B. holding that legislative immunity shields an official from liability if the act in question was undertaken in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity C. holding that the burden is on the defendants to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity D. holding that vulnerability to legislative alteration would seem to depend on the character of the compliance called for E. holding that legislative immunity is not forfeited simply because the activities if unprotected might violate a plaintiffs first amendment rights

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that legislative immunity does not depend on motivation for legislative action even if the motive was to impinge on plaintiffs free speech 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Depo. Ex. 4). Mr. Tuszkiewicz has simply not met his burden of showing that at the time of the adverse employment action, which he alleges, and the defendant concedes, took place in December, 1994, he was a qualified individual under the ADA. In an analogous case, the court of appeals for the seventh circuit held that because the plaintiff “failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to his ability to perform the essential functions of his job with reasonable accommodation” and because in the plaintiffs deposition, he stated that he was “unable to work” during the relevant time, summary judgment against his claim under the ADA was proper. Bombard, 92 F.3d at 564; see also Weiler v. Household Fin. Corp., 101 F.3d 519, 525 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Lewis v. Zilog, Inc., 908 F.Supp. 931, 946 Options: A. holding an employee must be able to perform essential job functions at the time of termination B. holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position C. holding that ada may obligate employer to reassign disabled employee who can no longer even with reasonable accommodation perform the essential functions of her job D. holding that plaintiff lacking standing to challenge employers policy that an employee had to be 100 healed before being permitted to return to work where plaintiff could not gain any relief from the per se violation of the ada because the plaintiff was not a qualified individual with a disability E. holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work
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: respect to crimes where physical force is not a required element of the offense, the courts have also focused on whether lack of consent on the part of the victim was a required element. In Sutherland, the Second Circuit ). Thus, the Connecticut Legislature has made the determination, as expressed in Conn. Gen.Stat. § 53a-71, that children under the age of sixteen are not adults capable of making an intelligent choice in matters relating to sex. See State v. Jason B, 248 Conn. at 571, 729 A.2d 760. In analogous cases involving child victims who are incapable of giving their consent to the sexual activity involved, courts have found a substantial risk that physical force will be used against these children to ensure their compliance. See United States v. Reyes-Castro, 13 F.3d at 379 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Alas-Castro, 184 F.3d 812, Options: A. holding that under iowa code 7098 the offense of lascivious acts with a child was a crime of violence because it involved a substantial risk that physical force would be used against the child victim in the course of committing the offense B. holding that a conviction for sexual assault of a child under nebrevstat 28320011 was a crime of violence because this type of contact between parties of differing physical and emotional maturity carries a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense C. holding that a conviction under utah code ann 7654041 for sexual abuse of a child was a crime of violence under 16b based upon a common sense view of the sexual abuse statute in combination with the legal determination that children are incapable of consent which suggests that when an older person attempts to sexually touch a child under the age of fourteen there is always a substantial risk that physical force will be used to ensure the childs compliance D. holding that attempted sexual abuse of a child under the age of fourteen is a crime of viqlenee E. holding trial court was proper in admitting a doctors testimony that a delay between the occurrence of an incident of child sexual abuse and the childs revelation of the incident was the usual pattern of conduct for victims of child sexual abuse

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a conviction under utah code ann 7654041 for sexual abuse of a child was a crime of violence under 16b based upon a common sense view of the sexual abuse statute in combination with the legal determination that children are incapable of consent which suggests that when an older person attempts to sexually touch a child under the age of fourteen there is always a substantial risk that physical force will be used to ensure the childs compliance
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: June 22, 1994, when State Farm deposited money representing the policy limits by inter-pleader into the state court. Burton did not sue State Farm until June 7, 2000. Burton contends that until the entry of a judgment in excess of the $100,000 paid to Burton out of State Farm’s insurance proceeds, Padgett did not incur any damages caused by State Farm’s alleged mishandling of the claim, and so the earliest his cause of action accrued was in October 1994 when the insurance funds were disbursed to the parties without a release. Burton contends, however, that Padgett’s cause of action did not accrue until the excess judgment was entered against him on October 27, 1999. The Montana Supreme Court has rejected this argument. Peris v. Safeco Ins. Co., 276 Mont. 486, 916 P.2d 780, 784 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Here, State Farm’s refusal to settle Burton’s Options: A. holding that an insurance company stands in the shoes of the insured when pursuing an action against the tortfeasor B. holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured C. holding that liability to the insured for acts or contracts of an insurance agent within the scope of his agency with a full disclosure of the principal rests on the company D. holding that an insured may sue an insurance company for violation of the utpa before the underlying lawsuit is settled or a judgment entered E. holding that an insurance policy providing that the insurance company would pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at our request emphasis omitted did not establish an agreement that the insurer would cover attorney fees and costs to the insured in a declaratory action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an insured may sue an insurance company for violation of the utpa before the underlying lawsuit is settled or a judgment entered
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: Naturalization Act (“INA”), as amended by IIRIRA. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. United States Attorney Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir.2003). Petitioner contends that the IJ erred in finding that he was provided proper notice of his removal proceedings because the notice to appear was not sent to his current address. He cites Matter of G-Y-R, 2001 WL 1515819, 23 I & N Dec. 181 (BIA 2001), and its progeny for the proposition that a respondent cannot be ordered removed in absentia where the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) used an old address in serving the notice to appear and failed to warn the respondent of the consequences of failing to inform the government of a change of address. Petitioner also contends that Dominguez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 284 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), is distinguishable from his case, in that Options: A. holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states B. holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient C. holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he is eligible for relief from deportation constitutes due process violation where alien establishes prejudice D. holding that the alien in that case had not established such circumstances E. recognizing burden is on alien when alien is removable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient
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: claims because they asserted or reasserted a federal basis for relief from his underlying conviction. In his brief, Mr. Haley focuses solely on the court’s ruling as to timeliness and not its determination that the claims were second or successive. Mindful of the deference we afford pro se pleadings,, see Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n. 1 (10th Cir.2007), we have carefully examined both motions and conclude they either in substance or effect assert or reassert a federal basis for relief from Mr. Haley’s underlying conviction. Reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the district court’s decision that the Rule 60(b) motions were subject to authorization under § 2255(h). See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 & n. 4, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Because reasonable jurists could not debate Options: A. holding that a rule 60b motion that presents grounds entitling a petitioner to habeas corpus relief or seeks to add a new ground for relief requires authorization B. holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law C. holding that district court must resolve all claims for relief premised on alleged constitutional violations which are raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus whether habeas relief is granted or denied D. holding that rule 60b bars sua sponte relief E. holding attorneys failure to object does not warrant rule 60b relief

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a rule 60b motion that presents grounds entitling a petitioner to habeas corpus relief or seeks to add a new ground for relief requires authorization
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise specified herein or if the context may otherwise require, capitalized terms not defined in this Agreement shall have the respective meanings assigned such terms set forth in (i) the Series 2016-A Indenture Supplement, dated as of July 19, 2016 (the “ Series 2016-A Indenture Supplement ”), by and among the Issuer and U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee, or (ii) if not defined in the Series 2016-A Indenture Supplement, the Amended and Restated Annex of Definitions, dated as of October 15, 2003 (the “ Annex of Definitions ”).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: acted without actual authorization from the United States. Kozak points to the fact that the Erickson investigation was a joint investigation involving local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Kozak argues that since Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) agents were involved in the investigation, they presumably “gave express actual authority to the Iowa officials to offer Kozak material witness status in return for immunity.” Kozak’s br. at 13. Kozak further contends that the FBI agents involved in the Erickson investigation were authorized to bind, the United States. The flaw in Kozak’s argument is two-fold. First, she has ailed to establish that ATF agents had authority to bind the United States Attorney); United States v. Kettering, 861 F.2d 675, 678 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hudson, 609 F.2d 1326, 1329 Options: A. holding that plea agreement with drug enforcement agency agent not enforceable when agent was not authorized by united states attorney to enter agreement B. holding that the employer was not the insurers agent C. holding that a waiver of right to appeal contained in a plea agreement is enforceable D. holding an agent from the drug enforcement agency could testify regarding the street value of cocaine where the agent was testifying regarding matters within his personal knowledge and experience as a narcotics officer E. holding that nonexclusive distributor was not agent of manufacturer where distributorship agreement expressly stated distributor is not an agent

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plea agreement with drug enforcement agency agent not enforceable when agent was not authorized by united states attorney to enter 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: As an employee of the Company, you will have access to certain confidential information of the Company and you may, during the course of your employment, develop certain information or inventions that will be the property of the Company. To protect the interests of the Company, you will need to sign the Company's standard "Employee Invention Assignment and Confidentiality Agreement" as a condition of your employment. We wish to impress upon you that we do not want you to, and we hereby direct you not to, bring with you any confidential or proprietary material of any former employer or to violate any other obligations you may have to any former employer. During the period that you render services to the Company, you agree to not engage in any employment, business or activity that is in any way competitive with the business or proposed business of the Company. You will disclose to the Company in writing any other gainful employment, business or activity that you are currently associated with or participate in that competes with the Company. You will not assist any other person or organization in competing with the Company or in preparing to engage in competition with the business or proposed business of the Company. You represent that your signing of this offer letter, agreement(s) concerning stock options granted to you, if any, under the Plan (as defined above) and the Company's Employee Invention Assignment and Confidentiality Agreement and your commencement of employment with the Company will not violate any agreement currently in place between yourself and current or past employers.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Johnson’s petition for certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment, and remanded his case for further proceedings in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Johnson’s sentence was imposed prior to the decisions in Booker and its predecessor, Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and he did not raise objections to his sentence based on the mandatory nature of the sentencing guidelines or the district court’s application of sentencing enhancements based on facts not admitted by him or found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we review his sentence for plain error. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-60 (4th Cir.2005). In a supplemental brief filed S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Johnson did not dispute that he satisfied the Options: A. holding that courts applying taylor may only look to the terms of the charging document the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual ba sis for the plea was confirmed by the defen dant or to some comparable judicial record of this information B. holding that a courts inquiry as to disputed facts in connection with a prior conviction is limited to the terms of the charging document a plea agreement a transcript of the plea colloquy or a comparable judicial record C. holding that court could look only to the statutory definition of a crime the charging document written plea agreement transcript of plea colloquy and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented in determining if prior conviction qualified as a generic burglary for purposes of enhanced sentencing under armed career criminal act D. holding that a complaints reference to a guilty plea does not make the transcript of the plea proffer integral to the complaint E. holding that in determining whether the defendant has a prior conviction for burglary under the armed career criminal act the federal court may look only to the terms of the charging document the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant or to some comparable judicial record of this information

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a courts inquiry as to disputed facts in connection with a prior conviction is limited to the terms of the charging document a plea agreement a transcript of the plea colloquy or a comparable judicial record
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: Subject to satisfaction of the conditions in Section 5 , the closing of the granting of the License Grant for the Term under this Agreement (the “ Closing ”) shall occur at a place mutually acceptable to Licensor and Licensee on October 17, 2017, or such other date that is mutually acceptable to Licensor and Licensee (the “ Closing Date ”). All transactions which are to take place at the Closing shall be considered to have taken place simultaneously, and no delivery or payment shall be considered to have been made until all the transactions have been completed.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if blizzard entertainment finds such a label to be offensive or improper , it may , in its sole and absolute discretion , change the name , remove the label and corresponding chat room , and/or suspend or terminate your use of world of warcraft .

assistant: Content removal, 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: The place of arbitration shall be the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York. To the extent that an issue is not expressly addressed in this Agreement, the arbitrators shall resolve such dispute or controversy in accordance with good commercial practice. The arbitrators shall decide such dispute in accordance with the law of the State of New York. The arbitrators shall decide such dispute within forty-five (45) days of selection of the third arbitrator. They shall apply the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.

assistant: Venues
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: add up to more than mere discomfiture, unpleasantness, harassment, or unfair treatment”). While the petitioner’s testimony indicates that she received threats, there is no evidence either that these threats materialized or that the petitioner herself was placed in harm’s way. We have said before, and today reaffirm, that “hollow threats, ... without more, certainly do not compel a finding of past persecution.” Ang v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir.2005). To cinch matters, the petitioner— apart from conjecture — never tied her first husband’s murder to her own persecution. An alien who claims that harm to a relative is evidence that she herself has been persecuted must present more than gossamer strands of speculation and surmise. See Ruiz v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). That is particularly true where, as here, the Options: A. holding that the board must refrain from reading particular phrases in isolation B. holding that the record did not compel a finding of persecution where an alien was detained for five or six days C. holding that where the record suggests that the negative experiences of a petitioner and her family exist in isolation from each other a finding of persecution is not warranted D. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution E. holding that a court should consider a defendants anticompetitive conduct as a whole rather than considering each aspect in isolation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where the record suggests that the negative experiences of a petitioner and her family exist in isolation from each other a finding of persecution is not warranted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any action whatsoever brought upon or relating to this Note shall be instituted and prosecuted in the state courts located in Clark County, Nevada, or the federal district court therefore, and each party waives the right to change the venue. The parties hereto further consent to accept service of process in any such action or proceeding by certified mail, return receipt requested.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any provision in this Waiver and Amendment No. 5 that is held to be inoperative, unenforceable, or invalid in any jurisdiction shall, as to that jurisdiction, be inoperative, unenforceable, or invalid without affecting the remaining provisions in that jurisdiction or the operation, enforceability, or validity of that provision in any other jurisdiction, and to this end the provisions of this Waiver and Amendment No. 5 are declared to be severable.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: rights ... to park on the Property pursuant to terms and conditions of the Easements. That language clearly demonstrates the parties’ intent that the Easement was to continue upon reconveyance. Furthermore, the language in the deed reconveying the Ocean Avenue Property to the City, which specified that the property was being conveyed “[s]ubject to” the Easement at issue, is sufficient as a matter of law to reserve the Easement for Boston/Logan. See Barnside v. Coughlin, 422 Mass. 233, 661 N.E.2d 929, 930 (1996) (affirming Land Court’s summary judgment decision that mortgage purporting to be “[s]ubject to proposed right of way” was sufficient to reserve to grantor the right to create an easement); Texon, Inc. v. Holyoke Machine Co., 8 Mass.App.Ct. 363, 394 N.E.2d 976, 978 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Surf Site argues that the parties could not Options: A. recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement B. holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement C. holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone D. holding that deed purporting to be subject to rights of the grantor holyoke to maintain steam and electrical conduits was sufficient to create an easement E. holding a quitclaim deed yields only such interest in land as the grantor had at the time of the making of such deed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that deed purporting to be subject to rights of the grantor holyoke to maintain steam and electrical conduits was sufficient to create an easement
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: From and after the Effective Date, (a) Employee shall serve as a Special Advisor to the Company and (b) Employee shall be employed by Company or a subsidiary or affiliate of Company. The Company may at any time and from time to time assign Employee to a different position or positions with the Company and cause Employee to be employed by Company or any subsidiary or affiliate of Company. Subject to the provisions of the last sentence of Section 5.5(a), employment with a subsidiary or affiliate of Company pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be considered as employment with Company for purposes of this Agreement.

assistant: Positions
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 we believe you are violating the policy on offers to buy or sell outside of ebay , you may be subject to a range of actions , including limits on your buying and selling privileges , restrictions on listings and account features , suspension of your account , application of fees , and recovery of expenses for policy monitoring and enforcement .

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Enter into any transaction of any kind with any Affiliate of the Company, whether or not in the ordinary course of business, other than on fair and reasonable terms substantially as favorable to the Company or such Restricted Subsidiary as would be obtainable by the Company or such Restricted Subsidiary at the time in a comparable arm’s length transaction with a Person other than an Affiliate; provided that the foregoing restriction shall not apply to (i) transactions between or among the Loan Parties, (ii) Investments and Restricted Payments permitted hereby, (iii) customary fees paid to directors, and customary indemnities provided to directors, (iv) any payments pursuant to any of the Company’s employee benefit plans, (v) the rights, privileges and preferences granted to the holders of any class of Preferred Stock of the Company arising under any related certificate of designation, investor rights agreement or regulatory side letter, each in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Required Lenders, (vi) so long as the Company is subject to the filing requirements of the SEC, any transaction that is otherwise permitted by any Company policy regarding such transactions to the extent such policy was approved by the Company’s board of directors, and (vii) any payments or other transaction pursuant to any tax sharing agreement between the Company and any other Person with which the Company files a consolidated tax return or with which the Company is part of a consolidated group for tax purposes.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any failure by any party to exercise its rights or remedies hereunder or any delay by such party in the exercise of any of its rights and remedies hereunder shall not, to the extent permitted by law, operate as a waiver or variation of such or any other right or remedy hereunder.

assistant: No Waivers
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: (a) It shall be a condition of the obligation of the Company to issue or release from the segregated account shares of Stock and Dividends to the Participant, and the Participant agrees, that the Participant shall pay to the Company upon demand such amount as may be requested by the Company for the purpose of satisfying its liability to withhold federal, state, or local income or other taxes incurred by reason of the award of the Stock or Dividends or as a result of the termination of the restrictions on such Stock or Dividends hereunder.

assistant: Tax 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: If the Receiving Party is a company, the Receiving Party may disclose Confidential Information (i) to the Receiving Party's directors, officers and employees (collectively, "Representatives"), in each case only to the extent reasonably necessary for the Receiving Party's internal use and only after informing each Representative of the restrictions in this Agreement on the disclosure and use of the Confidential Information and that he or she must comply with such restrictions, and (ii) to any other person or entity only with the Disclosing Parties' prior written consent in each instance. The Receiving Party shall keep all Confidential Information strictly confidential and shall not, without the respective Disclosing Party's prior written consent in each instance, disclose Confidential Information or any reports, work product or other documents containing any Confidential Information to any third party, firm, corporation or entity. The Receiving Party shall not, without the respective Disclosing Party's prior written consent in each instance, disclose CEII or any reports, work product or other documents containing any CEII to any third party, firm, corporation or entity.

assistant: No
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: property to be sufficient for injury-in-fact standing purposes. Indeed, the value of plaintiffs interest in the property, while stipulated for the purposes of this motion not to have been negatively affected since the date of purchase, will inevitably be affected by the continuing contamination that is alleged. Moreover, plaintiff will at the end of foreclosure proceedings either hold title to the property or realize the proceeds of the sale. Thus, plaintiff has a distinct economic as well as legal interest in the condition and value of the property-enough to provide it with standing to sue for cleanup of the contamination. The case that defendants cite, Alloy Briquet-ting, does not hold otherwise. See Alloy Briquetting Corp. v. Niagara Vest, Inc., 756 F.Supp. 713 (W.D.N.Y.1991) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Options: A. holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect B. holding a party has no standing to appeal unless he or she is an aggrieved party an individual who is not a parent in the eyes of the law has no legal interest in the child and therefore has no standing to appeal C. holding that an evicted plaintiff has no legal interest in property and therefore has no standing to bring a cercla claim D. holding that a void decree has no legal effect E. holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an evicted plaintiff has no legal interest in property and therefore has no standing to bring a cercla claim