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: 918 F.2d 154, 159 (11th Cir.1990). A district court should grant a preliminary injunction only if the movant clearly shows: 1. a substantial likelihood that the mov-ant will prevail on the merits; 2. that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if an injunction is, not issued; 3. that the potential injury to the mov-ant outweighs the possible harm to the nonmovant; and 4. that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Id. This Court will address each element in turn. 1. SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS To begin, the instant ease is controlled by this Court’s decision in Luckie v. Smith Barney, 766 F.Supp. 1116 (M.D.Fla.1991). In Luckie, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with AAA pursuant to the AMEX Window. Id. The defendants argued th 2nd Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Also, in Merrill Lynch v. Noonan, [Current] Options: A. holding that a party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and show that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement B. holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added C. holding that the arbitration provision naming particular arbitration fora superseded the amex constitution closed the amex window and precluded arbitration before aaa who was not named in the arbitration provision D. holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement E. holding that a specific customer agreement can supersede the amex constitution and requiring arbitration before one of the fora named in the agreement

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a specific customer agreement can supersede the amex constitution and requiring arbitration before one of the fora named in the 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: Except as set forth below, no public release or announcement concerning the transactions contemplated hereby shall be issued by the Company or the Investors without the prior consent of the Company (in the case of a release or announcement by the Investors) or the Investors (in the case of a release or announcement by the Company) (which consents shall not be unreasonably withheld), except as such release or announcement may be required by law or the applicable rules or regulations of any securities exchange or securities market, in which case the Company or the Investors, as the case may be, shall allow the Investors or the Company, as applicable, to the extent reasonably practicable in the circumstances, reasonable time to comment on such release or announcement in advance of such issuance. By 8:30 a.m. (New York City time) on the day required by SEC disclosure rules following the Closing Date, the Company shall issue a press release disclosing the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. No later than the fourth trading day following the Closing Date, the Company will file a Current Report on Form 8-K attaching the press release described in the foregoing sentence as well as copies of the Transaction Documents. In addition, the Company will make such other filings and notices in the manner and time required by the SEC or OTCQB.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company agrees to employ Executive, and Executive agrees to be employed by the Company, for a period (the “ Initial Term ”) commencing on the Effective Date and ending on the third (3 rd ) anniversary of the Effective Date, unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 4. If neither party gives the other at least ninety (90) days written notice that it intends for this Agreement to terminate at the end of the Initial Term, then this Agreement will continue for successive one-year terms (each a “ Renewal Term ”), unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 4, until either party gives the other party at least ninety (90) days written notice that it intends for this Agreement to terminate at the end of any such Renewal Term. The Initial Term and any Renewal Terms will constitute the “ Term ”. If either Executive or the Company gives timely notice of termination pursuant to this Section 2, then Executive’s employment shall end on the last day of the Term. A termination of Executive’s employment by reason of a timely notice of termination pursuant to this Section 2 shall not be considered a termination for Cause or without Cause by the Company, or a termination for Good Reason or without Good Reason by Executive.

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: No Default or Event of Default exists or would result from the incurring of any Obligations by the Company or the grant or perfection of Liens on the Collateral. The Company is not in default under or with respect to any Contractual Obligation in any respect which, individually or together with all such defaults, would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Defaults
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) Each Purchaser and Purchaser Agent hereby irrevocably designates and appoints The Bank of Nova Scotia, as the “Administrative Agent” hereunder and authorizes the Administrative Agent to take such actions and to exercise such powers as are delegated to the Administrative Agent hereby and to exercise such other powers as are reasonably incidental thereto. The Administrative Agent shall hold, in its name, for the benefit of each Purchaser, ratably, the Receivables Interest. The Administrative Agent shall not have any duties other than those expressly set forth herein or any fiduciary relationship with any Purchaser or Purchaser Agent, and no implied obligations or liabilities shall be read into this Agreement, or otherwise exist, against the Administrative Agent. The Administrative Agent does not assume, nor shall it be deemed to have assumed, any obligation to, or relationship of trust or agency with, the Seller or the Servicer. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement or any other Transaction Document to the contrary, in no event shall the Administrative Agent ever be required to take any action which exposes the Administrative Agent to personal liability or which is contrary to the provision of any Transaction Document or applicable Law.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the virtual items , as well as other digital content traded or exchanged for virtual items can only be used within the respective digital product , can not be transferred to a third party ( unless a transfer is permitted within the digital product ) and can not be exchanged for legal tender or any item or right outside of the digital product .

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: “Those injuries cannot be severed and allocated to different causes, whether those ‘causes’ are separate legal theories or ‘claims’ relating to the same act or are actually separate acts that combined to cause the injuries.” Admiral Ins. Co. v. Price-Williams, 129 So.3d 991, 1002, 2013 WL 2149491, *10 (Ala. May 17, 2013). As such, Robinson’s negligence claim is inextricably tied with the fact of his assauH/battery and the injuries which resulted. Thus, the Hudson policy excludes coverage based on Crown Theater’s negligent omissions which resulted in Robinson’s assault). See e.g., United Nat. Ins. Co., 945 F.2d at 212-215; Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Who Subscribe to Policy No. TCN 002517 v. Karma Korner, LLC, 2011 WL 1150466, *4 (M.D.Fla. Mar. 28, 2011) (<HOLDING>). In sum, “liability-policy clauses that Options: A. holding similar exclusion excluding coverage for any loss was clear and unambiguous and excluded coverage for um claims even though such claims were not expressly mentioned in the exclusion B. holding the oah erroneously applied the exclusion to a diagnosis given in 1993 before the exclusion was enacted C. holding that the assaultbattery exclusion applied to claims for negligence resulting in a shooting death D. holding exclusion was not ambiguous E. holding that evidence of recklessness by one officer in events leading up to shooting was immaterial in evaluating objective reasonableness of shooting officers decision to use deadly force in the situation he faced at time of shooting

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the assaultbattery exclusion applied to claims for negligence resulting in a shooting death
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 consent of the Borrower will be required unless (i) an event of default has occurred and is continuing or (ii) the assignment is to a Lender, an affiliate of a Lender or an Approved Fund (as such term is defined in the Existing Credit Agreement) (and the Borrower’s consent will be deemed given if not expressly withheld within five business days). The consent of the Administrative Agent (not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) will be required for any assignment of any outstanding Bridge Term Loan to an entity that is not a Lender, an affiliate of a Lender or an Approved Fund.

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: Subject to Section 8.16 , in the event of any actual or threatened default in, or breach of, any of the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, the Party or Parties who are, or are to be, thereby aggrieved shall have the right to specific performance and injunctive or other equitable relief (on an interim or permanent basis) in respect of its rights or their rights under this Agreement, in addition to any and all other rights and remedies at law or in equity, and all such rights and remedies shall be cumulative. The Parties agree that the remedies at law for any breach or threatened breach are inadequate compensation for any loss and that any defense in any Action for specific performance that a remedy at law would be adequate is waived. Any requirements for the securing or posting of any bond with such remedy are hereby waived by each of the Parties. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, Parent shall continue to provide Services and the Parties shall honor all other commitments under this Agreement during the course of dispute resolution pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.16 and this Section 8.17 with respect to all matters not subject to such Dispute; provided , however , that this obligation shall only exist during the term of this Agreement.

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: and support[.]” (Resp. at 11.) To support this assertion, Defendant cites the following statement from Phillips: “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” (Resp. at 11, citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.) Defendant’s reliance on this passage is misplaced, as Defendant points to nothing in the claim language requiring contact, and the passage does not dictate that the Court adopt a construction that precisely reflects the embodiment of the invention shown in the patent’s drawing in the specification. In fact, case law clearly establishes that the Court need not do so. See Teleflex Inc. v. Ficosa N. America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325-28 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Here, while Defendant Options: A. holding that although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments B. holding that embodiments disclosed in the specification are not determinative of the meaning of disputed claim terms C. holding that courts must not import limitations from the specification into the claim D. holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims E. holding that the determination of whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification to support a meansplusfunction limitation is based on the understanding of one skilled in the art

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that embodiments disclosed in the specification are not determinative of the meaning of disputed claim 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: please note that if a third party account or associated service becomes unavailable or academia.edu 's access to such third party account is terminated by the third party service provider , then the third party account content that was available from such third party account will no longer be available on and through the site and services .

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: Any mention of “Articles,” “Sections” and subsections thereof, unless stated specifically to the contrary, refers to Articles, Sections or subsections in the Plan. Headings of Articles, Sections and subsections are for convenient reference. The headings are not part of the Plan and are not to be considered in its construction. All references to statutory sections shall include the section as amended from time to time.

assistant: Construction
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: not allege, nor does she present any evidence, that she provided Porter or Amtrak with any medical records or informed Porter or the company that she considered herself disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Nor does she present evidence that anyone at Amtrak mistakenly believed either that she had a physical impairment that substantially limited any major life activity, or that an actual nonlimiting impairment she had substantially limited a major life activity. Porter’s admitted knowledge of plaintiffs back problems and Amtrak having provided plaintiff with an oversized chair does not, without more, establish that she or any other Amtrak employee perceived plaintiff as disabled within the meaning of the ADA. See, e.g., Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., 252 F.3d 696, 703 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Kellogg v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 233 F.3d Options: A. holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled B. holding that an employers awareness of plaintiffs past medical problems does not establish that it regarded her as disabled C. holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled D. holding that regarded as disabled plaintiffs are not entitled to reasonable accommodation E. holding that when an employer takes steps to accommodate an employees restrictions it is not thereby conceding that the employee is disabled under the ada or that it regards the employee as disabled

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled
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: 556 U.S. 396, 406, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 173 L.Ed.2d 532 (2009). Based on the particular facts of this case, we cannot hold that the error was harmless because the Board has not yet adjudicated Mrs. Reliford’s accrued benefits claim against the proper factual background. See Gambill v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed.Cir.2009) (per curiam) (“Harmless error is fully applicable to veterans’ claims cases, subject to the same principles that apply generally to harmless error analysis in other civil and administrative cases.”) (citing Sanders, 556 U.S. at 406, 129 S.Ct. 1696); Wagner v. United States, 365 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“Where the effect of an error on the outcome of a proceeding is unquantifiable, however, we will not speculate as to what the outcome might have (1993) (<HOLDING>); cf. Beverly v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 394, Options: A. holding that this court must remand to the bia to allow it to address in the first instance an issue that it has not yet considered B. holding the board must either obtain a waiver or determine whether a claimant will be prejudiced by the boards adjudication of a question or issue in an appeal not otherwise decided by the ro otherwise it must remand for the ro to decide the question in the first instance C. holding that this court has discretion to either address or remand arguments presented to it in the first instance provided it otherwise has jurisdiction over the claim D. holding that the boards finding that a matter was not before it because a substantive appeal had not been filed was error and determining that because a timely nod had been submitted and the ro never responded by issuing an soc as required by law and regulation the proper remedy was to vacate the board decision as to the matter and remand to the board for appropriate procedural compliance specifically the issuance of an soc E. holding the issue of use can be necessary to the adjudication by the board of adjustment of the underlying request for a variance when the issue is raised in the context of an issue the board of adjustment is required to decide

assistant: The best answer is B. holding the board must either obtain a waiver or determine whether a claimant will be prejudiced by the boards adjudication of a question or issue in an appeal not otherwise decided by the ro otherwise it must remand for the ro to decide the question in the first instance
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 then only if the evidence rendered the trial “fundamentally unfair.” Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009). The admission of inculpatory evidence violated due process only if there were no permissible inferences the jury could have drawn from the nable in denying Petitioner’s claim that admission of Pratti’s hearsay statements deprived Petitioner of due process and a fair trial. Petitioner alleges that the hearsay statements were “not reliable” and “extremely damaging.” (Pet. at 49.) Absent clearly established federal law recognizing that the admission of irrelevant or prejudicial evidence violates due process, the court of appeal could not have been unreasonable under AEDPA. See Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 125-26, 128 S.Ct. 743, 169 L.Ed.2d 583 (2008) (<HOLDING>); Holley, 568 F.3d at 1101. In any event, even Options: A. holding this court can issue habeas writ only if state courts application of supreme court precedent is objectively unreasonable B. holding that a state court cannot be said to have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under 2254d1 when there are no holdings from the supreme court addressing the issue raised by the petitioner C. holding that where the supreme court has expressly left an open question circuit precedent is immaterial and there is no clearly established law for the state court to have unreasonably applied D. holding state court could not have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law given the lack of holdings from the supreme court regarding the potentially prejudicial effect of spectators courtroom conduct E. holding that state court could not have unreasonably applied federal law if no clear supreme court precedent existed

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that state court could not have unreasonably applied federal law if no clear supreme court precedent existed
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 connection between the other crime and the charged crime is strong, admission may be appropriate, even if the other acts were remote in time.”). Here, any concerns about the other-acts evidence being too remote are outweighed by the similarity between the other-acts evidence and the crimes charged. The challenged testimony revealed that Mr. Watson previously cultivated marijuana with the same individual with whom he was currently charged. For all practical purposes, the other-acts evidence demonstrated that Mr. Watson previously engaged in almost the exact same conduct with the exact same person. When the similarities are this evident, we have had no trouble concluding that the “[similarity of [the] prior acts to the charged offense[s] ... outweighfs] conce 3, 873 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Meacham, 115 F.3d at 1495 (holding that Options: A. holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment B. holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime C. holding that evidence of an eighteenyearold conviction was admissible to show intent because that conviction involved exactly the same crime as was charged in the indictment D. holding that evidence of a 10yearold drug conviction was properly admitted to show intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute E. holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that evidence of an eighteenyearold conviction was admissible to show intent because that conviction involved exactly the same crime as was charged in the indictment
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: Borrower hereby grants to Lender a continuing lien for all indebtedness of Borrower, the Bank, or the other Subsidiaries to Lender upon any and all of its monies, securities and other property and the proceeds thereof, now or hereafter held or received by or in transit to Lender from or for Borrower, and also upon any and all deposits (general or special, matured or unmatured) and credits of Borrower against Lender at any time existing. Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default as specified above, Lender is hereby authorized at any time and from time to time, without notice to Borrower, the Bank, or the other Subsidiaries, to set off, appropriate, and apply any and all items hereinabove referred to against any or all indebtedness of Borrower to Lender, whether under this Agreement, or otherwise, whether now existing or hereafter arising. Lender shall give written notice to Borrower of such setoff appropriation or application after such setoff, appropriation or application occurs.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: order, and such cannot Md. 12, 590 A.2d 165 (1991), the Maryland court explained as follows: [The] legislative requirement of consideration of the factors itemized in [the statute] demonstrates the intent that the utmost caution should be exercised in any decision to terminate parental rights. In cases where parental rights are terminated, it is important that each factor be addressed specifically not only to demonstrate that all factors were considered but also to provide a record for review of this drastic measure. Id. at 168. “Clear and complete findings by the trial judge are essential to enable us properly to exercise and not exceed our powers of review.” Nicpon v. Nicpon, 9 Mich. App. 373, 157 N.W.2d 464, 467 (1968); see In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 733 A.2d 298 (1999) (<HOLDING>). C. The Process for Disposition of Abuse and Options: A. recognizing this substantial interest in context of termination of parental rights B. holding that trial court mandated to consider and make written findings of fact regarding statutory factors in dispositional phase of termination of parental rights hearing C. holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it D. holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids E. holding in termination of parental rights case that trial court erred in taking judicial notice of evidence before him in guardianship hearing in same case

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that trial court mandated to consider and make written findings of fact regarding statutory factors in dispositional phase of termination of parental rights hearing
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: Cash Collateral (or the appropriate portion thereof) provided to reduce Fronting Exposure or to secure other obligations shall be released promptly following (i) the elimination of the applicable Fronting Exposure or other obligations giving rise thereto (including by the termination of Defaulting Lender status of the applicable Lender (or, as appropriate, its assignee following compliance with Section 10.06(b)(vi) )) or (ii) the determination by Agent and the applicable L/C Issuer that there exists excess Cash Collateral; provided , however , (x) any such release shall be without prejudice to, and any disbursement or other transfer of Cash Collateral shall be and remain subject to, any other Lien conferred under the Credit Documents and the other applicable provisions of the Credit Documents, and (y) the Person providing Cash Collateral and the applicable L/C Issuer may agree that Cash Collateral shall not be released but instead held to support future anticipated Fronting Exposure or other obligations.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower agrees to reimburse the Administrative Agent for its reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the Loan Documents (including the preparation of this Agreement), including the reasonable fees, charges and disbursements of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement will inure to the benefit of the Company, the Bank and the MHC and any successors and assigns. Executive may not assign Executive’s rights, duties or obligations under this Agreement. None of the terms of this Agreement may be changed or modified except in a writing signed by each of Executive and the Company, the Bank and the MHC. Any such agreed upon change or modification to this Agreement will not restart or otherwise affect the original 21 calendar day consideration period referred to in Section 9 above.

assistant: Assignments
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: used in practice”). Further, the district court’s reliance on the testimony of MEEI’s patent law expert to support its conclusion that Dr. Levy made a significant contribution is misplaced. The patent law expert testified that a proposed experiment to test 200 mW/cm2, 250 mW/cm2, 300 mW/cm2, and 600 mW/cm2 could not serve as the basis for conception of a range of 300 mW/cm2 to 900 mW/cm2 because the experiments did not test beyond 600 mW/ cm2. Based on this testimony, the district court improperly concluded that an inventor must actually test at 900 mW/cm2 to conceive a range of 300 mW/cm2 to 900 mW/cm2. Testing at exactly the end points of a range is not necessarily required for a conception of that range. See Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Because a trier of fact could conclude that Options: A. holding that an agreed order with a state administrative agency was a public record and thus did not need to be disclosed B. holding that an applicants failure to include specific issues in his petition for review results in abandonment of any claims of error he might have raised regarding the decisions related to those issues C. holding that an agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistencies in the record unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so D. holding that ranges found in an applicants claims need not correspond exactly to those disclosed in a parent application E. holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that ranges found in an applicants claims need not correspond exactly to those disclosed in a parent application
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: 163 U.S. at 658, 16 S.Ct. 1127. The Supreme Court has recognized that there are cases in which an error may seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings even “independent of the defendant’s innocence.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 736-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770. One such case is Silber v. United States, 370 U.S. 717, 82 S.Ct. 1287, 8 L.Ed.2d 798 (1962) (per curiam), in which the Court considered whether to notice a defect in an indictment. In its short per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that the defect in the indictment constituted reversible plain error even though the error was not raised in either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Silber, 370 U.S. at 717, 82 S.Ct. 1287; see also United States v. Brown, 995 F.2d 1493, 1504 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Clark, 412 F.2d 885, 887-88 Options: A. holding that failure to prove an essential element of an offense does not constitute fundamental error which may be raised for the first time on appeal B. holding that in the absence of a government crossappeal an appellate court may not sua sponte correct a district court error if the correction would be to the defendants detriment C. holding under a plain error analysis that a failure to charge the jury with an essential element did not warrant reversal of the conviction where the evidence supporting that element was overwhelming D. holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error E. holding that the failure to charge an essential element of a crime in the indictment is an error which should be noted by an appellate court sua sponte as plain error

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the failure to charge an essential element of a crime in the indictment is an error which should be noted by an appellate court sua sponte as plain error
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that is, a conscious desire, to reenter the United States on August 8, 2006 without the express consent of the Secretary of the Depa ndant’s conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14, in violation of California Penal Code § 288, is a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). United States v. Medina-Maella, 351 F.3d 944 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.1999). Therefore, the court properly applied a 16-level upward adjustment. 3. Defendant concedes that his argument, preserved for the sake of potential Supreme Court review, that his prior conviction had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt has been rejected numerous times by this court. See, e.g., United States v. Velasquez-Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not Options: A. holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 in which supreme court held it unnecessary to prove prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt is narrow exception to apprendi B. holding that blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531159 led2d 403 2004 did not overrule almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 C. holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 remains good law and rejecting the contention that prior convictions must be admitted by the defendant or found by the jury D. holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court E. holding that the supreme courts holding in almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 that the government need not allege in its indictment and need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions for a district court to use those convictions for purposes of enhancing a sentence remains binding precedent

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 remains good law and rejecting the contention that prior convictions must be admitted by the defendant or found by the jury
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 355 U.S. 389 78 S.Ct. 358 2 L.Ed.2d 350 SAFEWAY STORES, Incorporated, Petitioner,v.Harry V. VANCE, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Frank Melvin Thompson, Bankrupt. No. 69. Argued Nov. 21, 1957. Decided Jan. 20, 1958. Rehearing and Modification Denied March 17, 1958. See 356 U.S. 910, 78 S.Ct. 667. Mr. John B. Tittmann, Albuquerque, N.M., for petitioner. Mr. Robert J. Nordhaus, Albuquerque, N.M., for respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 This is a companion case to No. 67, Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 355 U.S. 373, 78 S.Ct. 352. In the present case the Court of Appeals has held that a private action for treble damages1 does lie under § 4 of the Clayton Act for violation of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. 239 F.2d 144. Because of the conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Nashville Milk Co. case, 238 F.2d 86, we granted certiorari. 352 U.S. 1023, 77 S.Ct. 590, 1 L.Ed.2d 595. 2 The complaint in this case alleges both sales 'at unreasonably low prices' and price discriminations in violation of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. For the reasons set forth in our Nashville Milk Co. opinion, 355 U.S. 373, 78 S.Ct. 352, we hold that the complaint should have been dismissed insofar as it rests on alleged unlawful selling at unreasonably low prices, and that the respondent was entitled to a trial as to the charges of unlawful price discrimination. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 3 It is so ordered. 4 Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated and cause remanded to District Court with directions. 5 The CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice BRENNAN, dissent. 6 For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, see 355 U.S. 373, 78 S.Ct. 359. 1 The complaint does not ask for injunctive relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act.

assistant: 8
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, the other Credit Documents and any separate letter agreements with respect to fees payable to the Administrative Agent constitute the entire contract among the parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersede any and all previous agreements and understandings, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: impact across state lines and around the world. It also increases the cost of insurance. Although theft itself is not a commercial activity, § 668 as a whole is directed toward interstate commerce by reducing traffic in objects of cultural heritage stolen from museums whose activities affect interstate commerce. U.S. v. Windley, 1997 WL 431129 at *2 (S.D.N.Y.1997). Congress rationally could conclude that criminalizing the theft of objects of cultural heritage from museums will reduce interstate trafficking in stolen art and thus is “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” Id. (quoting Lopez, 115 S.Ct. at 1631). See also U.S. v. Franklyn, 1998 WL 603237 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the definition of “museum” in § 668 Options: A. holding that enactment of 13981 exceeded congressional authority under either the commerce clause or section 5 of the fourteenth amendment B. holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment C. holding that conviction for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 usc 922g is valid under the commerce clause as long as the ammunition had previously moved in interstate commerce even though the possession did not have a substantial affect on same D. holding unconstitutional 18 usc 922q as beyond congresss commerce clause power E. holding 18 usc 922o a valid exercise of congressional power under commerce clause

assistant: The best answer is E. holding 18 usc 922o a valid exercise of congressional power under commerce clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in 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 Agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Agreement by telefacsimile or other electronic transmission shall be equally as effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Agreement. Any party delivering an executed counterpart of this Agreement by telefacsimile or other electronic transmission also shall deliver an original executed counterpart of this Agreement but the failure to deliver an original executed counterpart shall not affect the validity, enforceability, and binding effect of this Agreement. The foregoing shall apply to each other Loan Document mutatis mutandis.

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: Mr. Belcher testified that he was able to remove the radio from the van. R.59, Ex. 2 at 50. 6 . Indiana courts have defined false imprisonment as "the unlawful restraint upon one's freedom of movement or the deprivation of one’s liberty without consent.” Miller v. City of Anderson, 777 N.E.2d 1100, 1104 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). Indiana courts have stated also that "[a] defendant may be liable for false arrest when he or she arrests the plaintiff[s] in the absence of probable cause to do so.” Id. The circumstances of this procedural due process claim do not involve false arrest or false imprisonment under Indiana tort law. Therefore, these exceptions to the law enforcement immunity provision do not apply. 7 . See, e.g., East Chicago Police Dep’t v. Bynum, 826 N.E.2d 22, 26 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>); City of Hammond v. Reffitt, 789 N.E.2d 998, Options: A. holding police officers were entitled to immunity where the officers decided not to arrest an intoxicated driver who subsequently died of hypothermia in his vehicle B. holding that police officers were not entitled to immunity under the itca law enforcement immunity provision where the officers violated their statutory duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all individuals while acting within the scope of their employment C. holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity D. holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity E. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that police officers were not entitled to immunity under the itca law enforcement immunity provision where the officers violated their statutory duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all individuals while acting within the scope of their employment
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: court in regard to one of his two claims and affirm without comment in regard to the other claim. In his motion, Wilford alleges that his defense counsel was' ineffective both for failing to file a motion to suppress his statements made to law enforcement and for failing at trial to object to the admissibility of these statements. Wilford asserts his counsel -should have filed a motion to suppress alleging both inadequate Miranda warnings and a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The limited record shows that law enforcement may have given Wilford inadequate Miranda warnings by not informing him that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law or something equivalent. See Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 201-02, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989) (<HOLDING>). See also Thompson v. State, 595 So.2d 16, 17 Options: A. holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible B. holding that selfinitiated statements volunteered after miranda warnings had been given are admissible C. recognizing a public safety exception to the requirement that miranda warnings be given in order to use a suspects statement as evidence against him at trial D. holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda E. holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given
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, requests and demands to or upon the Administrative Agent, any Lender or the CME Guarantor shall be effected in the manner provided in Section 9.01 of the Credit Agreement; any such notice, request or demand to or upon the CME Guarantor shall be addressed to the CME Guarantor at its notice address as provided in Section 9.01 of the Credit Agreement.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: subscriber is solely responsible for any use of or action taken under subscriber 's password and accepts full responsibility for all activity conducted through subscriber 's account and agrees to and hereby releases the site and 9gag , inc from any and all liability concerning such activity .

assistant: None