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: to encourage consensual workouts and the obvious desirability of minimizing bankruptcy filings, we conclude that for purposes of section 502(b)(2), no new OID is created in a face value debt-for-debt exchange in the context of a consensual workout. Thus, OID on the new debt consists only of the discount carried over from the old debt, that is, the unamortized OID remaining on the old debt at the time of the exchange. The cases upon which the bankruptcy court relied in reaching a contrary conclusion are distinguishable. The court found support for its conclusion by looking to tax cases, because under the Internal Revenue Code, for purposes of determining taxable income, an exchange offer generates new OID. See, e.g., Cities Service Co. v. United States, 522 F.2d 1281, 1288 (2d Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 827, 96 S.Ct. 43, 46 Options: A. holding that transfer of property to llc involved no consideration for state conveyance tax purposes because it was a unilateral act and not the result of a bargainedfor exchange B. holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted C. holding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by addressing a question that was not submitted to arbitration and actually emerged six weeks after the original issue arose D. recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum E. holding in tax context that oid arose on exchange because the face amount of the issue exceeded the consideration

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in tax context that oid arose on exchange because the face amount of the issue exceeded the consideration
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: Mortgagor hereby absolutely grants and assigns to Mortgagee the Leases and Rents. Nevertheless, subject to the terms of this Section 5.1 , Mortgagee grants to Mortgagor a revocable license to operate and manage the Leases and Rents and to collect the Rents. Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of an Event of Default, without need for notice or demand to Mortgagor, the license granted to Mortgagor herein shall automatically be revoked, and Mortgagee shall immediately be entitled to possession of all Leases and Rents, whether or not Mortgagee enters upon or takes control of the Leases and Rents. Additionally, upon the occurrence and during the continuance of an Event of Default, Mortgagee shall be entitled to: (a) notify any person that the Leases have been assigned to Mortgagee and that all Rents are to be paid directly to Mortgagee, whether or not Mortgagee has commenced or completed foreclosure or taken possession of the Mortgaged Property; (b) settle, compromise, release, extend the time of payment of, and make allowances, adjustments and discounts of any Rents or other obligations under the Leases; (c) enforce payment of Rents and other rights under the Leases, prosecute any action or proceeding, and defend against any claim with respect to Rents and Leases; (d) enter upon, take possession of and operate the Mortgaged Property; (e) lease all or any part of the Mortgaged Property; and/or (f) perform any and all obligations of Mortgagor under the Leases and exercise any and all rights of Mortgagor therein contained to the full extent of Mortgagor’s rights and obligations thereunder, with or without the bringing of any action or the appointment of a receiver. Mortgagor hereby irrevocably authorizes and directs each tenant under any Lease to rely upon any written notice of the existence of an Event of Default sent by Mortgagee to any such tenant, and thereafter to pay Rents to Mortgagee, without any obligation or right to inquire as to whether an Event of Default actually exists and even if some notice to the contrary is received from Mortgagor, who shall have no right or claim against any such tenant for any such Rents so paid to Mortgagee.

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: complaint nor any facts relating to VBCJ’s General Order support an argument that Waters received less procedural due process than what is constitutionally required in the circumstances. Therefore, VBCJ’s fee program does not violate Waters’ right to procedural due process. C. Legitimate Penological Interest Finally, Waters’ complaint, broadly construed, alleges that Virginia’s one dollar per day room and board fee is not reasonably related to any legitimate penological interest. This claim also plainly fails, as there are several conceivable rationales to support the finding that VBCJ’s fee program is “ ‘reasonably related’ to promoting a legitimate penological interest.” Sample v. Angelone, 173 F.3d 425 (Table), 1999 WL 52347, *1 (4th Cir. Feb.5 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Section 53.1-131.3 provides as follows: Options: A. holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person B. holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs C. holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs D. holding that deliberate indifference standard for imposing supervisory liability based on an eighth amendment violation is consistent with iqbal and collecting cases E. holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 shall survive the termination of this Agreement and Executive’s employment hereunder in accordance with their terms.

assistant: Survival
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 become effective when executed and delivered by the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be effective both before and after the commencement of any Insolvency or Liquidation Proceeding. All references to the Company or any other Grantor shall include the Company or any other Grantor as debtor and debtor-in-possession and any receiver or trustee for the Company or any other Grantor (as the case may be) in any Insolvency or Liquidation Proceeding.

assistant: Effectiveness
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 provided in Section 1.3, the Restricted Stock Units awarded hereunder shall fully vest on the first anniversary of the Grant Date (the “RSU Vesting Date”) provided that you have continuously provided services to the Company from the Grant Date through the RSU Vesting Date.

assistant: Vesting
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: -, 115 S.Ct. 1359, 131 L.Ed.2d 216 (1995), the methodology employed by the majority gives panels of this court license to issue what in essence are advisory opinions on significant constitutional questions which, because they are Teague-barred, are not even cognizable on federal habeas. Here, for example, our circuit is henceforth bound by the majority’s interpretation of Simmons — an interpretation with which, this time, I happen to agree — when the scope of that decision is not even properly before the court. I would decide the question we are required by Caspari and Gray to decide, namely whether Simmons announced a new rule of constitutional law, and hold that Simmons is a new rule and thus unavailable to petitioner under Teague. Cf. Stewart v. Lane, 60 F.3d 296, 301 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). It is implausible that a reasonable jurist, Options: A. holding that identical language in montana postconviction relief statute bars application of laches B. holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence C. holding that conviction based on plea of nolo contendere bars subsequent 1983 claim because even though such a plea does not involve admission of guilt it does communicate acceptance of conviction and sentence D. holding that teague bars application of simmons to a conviction final in 1985 E. holding that 405k cannot support a rule 60b motion for relief from a final civil judgment and stating that the principle of retroactive application of controlling decisions applies only to application in other civil cases which are not yet final at the time the controlling decision is issued

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that teague bars application of simmons to a conviction final in 1985
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: § 1983.” Rancho Palos Verdes, 544 U.S. at 121, 125 S.Ct. 1453. But Congress did not provide a means of private redress here. And private enforcement of § 1396a(a)(23) in suits under § 1983 in no way interferes with the Secretary’s prerogative to enforce compliance using her administrative authority. Indeed, addressing a different subsection of § 1396a(a), the Supreme Court has held that the Medicaid Act’s “administrative scheme cannot be considered sufficiently comprehensive to demonstrate a congressional intent to withdraw the private remedy of § 1983.” Wilder, 496 U.S. at 522, 110 S.Ct. 2510. Wilder held that the Boren Amendment, which established a standard for Medicaid reimbursement of hospitals, nursing homes, and intermediate-care facilities, is enforceable under § 1983. Id. (<HOLDING>). Our conclusion finds support in decisions Options: A. holding that 42 usc 1396aa13a which requires states to make reasonable reimbursement to providers was enforceable by the providers pursuant to section 1983 B. holding that person in 42 usc 1983 does not include states C. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 D. holding that 42 usc 1396aa13a is enforceable in a suit under 1983 E. holding that a state prisoner may not challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for damages under 42 usc 1983

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 42 usc 1396aa13a is enforceable in a suit under 1983
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: faith.” But this finding is also not grounded in substantial record evidence under our case law. Golkar’s sworn testimony at the hearing offered a coherent, detailed and consistent account of his gradual attraction to Christianity, his personal conversion experience, and his baptism at a Tehran church. The IJ’s decision did not call into question, or even mention, this testimony. Rather, the IJ based his adverse credibility finding solely on inconsistent statements contained in the Assessment to Refer. The Assessment to Refer, however, does not constitute substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility finding, because it suffers from the same defects in reliability as the Assessment to Refer rejected in Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2005). See id. at 1087-90 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, none of the “indicia of Options: A. holding that the asylum officers assessment to refer was not sufficient evidence of what singh said to permit evaluation of an asserted conflict with singhs later testimony where the assessment to refer inter alia did not contain any record of the questions and answers at the asylum interview or other detailed contemporary chronological notes of the interview but only a short conclusory summary essentially an opinion B. holding that we lack jurisdiction when a petitioner fails to argue before the bia that there is no evidence he was under oath during the asylum interview C. holding that where asylum officer testifies regarding accuracy of interviewing procedures inconsistencies between petitioners asylum interview testimony and merits hearing testimony form sufficient basis to uphold adverse credibility determination D. holding that an order granting the media the right to interview a defendant in a capital murder case was unreviewable upon appeal in the criminal trial and therefore immediately appealable as a collateral order because the review on appeal would have been too late to cure any damage to the defendant from what was said in the interview E. holding that an adverse credibility finding can be based on materially different asylum claims in an airport interview and petitioners subsequent testimony before the ij

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the asylum officers assessment to refer was not sufficient evidence of what singh said to permit evaluation of an asserted conflict with singhs later testimony where the assessment to refer inter alia did not contain any record of the questions and answers at the asylum interview or other detailed contemporary chronological notes of the interview but only a short conclusory summary essentially an opinion
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 Guarantors jointly and severally agree to pay, or cause to be paid, on demand, and to save each Dealer against liability for, any and all costs and expenses (including reasonable and documented fees and disbursements of external counsel) incurred or expended by any Dealer in connection with the enforcement of or preservation of any rights under this Guaranty.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: our platform does not constitute and should not be regarded as a recommendation or endorsement of the quality , service level , qualification or ( star ) rating of any supplier ( or its facilities , venue , products or services ) made available .

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: absolutely immune from damages liability under §1983 for this conduct. Relying on its decision in Salyer v. Patrick, 874 F. 2d 374 (CA6 1989), the Court of Appeals affirmed. I would grant certiorari to address petitioner’s challenge to that ruling. In Salyer, the Sixth Circuit held that, “due to their quasiprosecutorial function in the initiation of child abuse proceedings,” social workers are absolutely immune from liability for filing juvenile abuse petitions. Id., at 378. Other courts addressing the question have agreed that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity under § 1983 in some instances, depending on their conduct and the terms of the state laws pursuant to which they acted. See, e. g., Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dept. of Social Servs., 812 F. 2d 1154, 1157 (CA9) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 829 (1987); Vosburg Options: A. holding that social services attorneys were entitled to absolute immunity for actions related to the prosecution of child neglect and delinquency proceedings B. holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity when prosecuting child delinquency petitions C. holding that state prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution D. holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity in performing quasiprosecutorial functions connected with the initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings E. holding that child social workers are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions on behalf of the state in preparing for initiating and prosecuting dependency hearings as well as the formulation and presentation of recommendations to the court in the course of such proceedings

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity in performing quasiprosecutorial functions connected with the initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974) (“The challenged legislation in the present case does not require appellee and his class to make any choice comparable to that required of the petitioners in Gillette. The withholding of educational benefits involves only an incidental burden upon appellee’s free exercise of religion — if, indeed, any burden exists at all.”); Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 606, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961) (using “[statutes which [both] tax income and limit the amount which may be deducted for religious contributions impose an indirect economic burden on the observance of the religion of the citizen whose religion requires him to donate a greater amount to his church” as example of insubstantial burden.); Navajo Nation, 535 F.3d at 1070 (<HOLDING>). The case law supports the conclusion that the Options: A. holding that the burden was insubstantial when there was no governmentcoerced action or governmentforced choice between the plaintiffs practicing their religion or receiving a government benefit B. holding that there is no basis in law to submit the issue of plaintiffs negligence to the jury when there was no evidence that plaintiff incited the dog or voluntarily or unreasonably exposed herself to a known risk C. holding that plaintiffs claim was moot because there was no standing because the supreme court considered plaintiffs claims to have drifted into the area of speculation and conjecture so that there was no cognizable injuryinfact and hence no case or controversy upon which jurisdiction could stand D. holding that absent privity between plaintiffs and the government there is no ease E. holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the burden was insubstantial when there was no governmentcoerced action or governmentforced choice between the plaintiffs practicing their religion or receiving a government benefit
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of private homes from governmental invasions without probable cause was the bedrock principle of the common law that there exists an “ ‘overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic.’ ” Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170, 178, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1741, 80 L.Ed.2d 214, 224 (1984) quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 601, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1387, 63 L.Ed.2d 639, 660 (1980). A citizen’s privacy interests are not limited to his or her home, however. Rather, those interests extend to his or her person. As the Supreme Court observed in Katz v. United States, “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home . 3469, 3480-3481, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201, 1220 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334, 110 Options: A. holding officer may search vehicle for weapons if officer has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that officer or another may be in danger B. holding that search of the passenger compartment of an automobile limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which taken together with the rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons C. holding that an investigatory stop must be supported by specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant that intrusion D. holding that to justify detention of a criminal suspect the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant that intrusion E. holding that a limited search of the outer clothing of a suspect for weapons is reasonable where the officer has a reasonable articulable basis for believing that the suspect may be armed and presently dangerous

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that search of the passenger compartment of an automobile limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which taken together with the rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons
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: Section 4.26(a) of the EnTrust Disclosure Schedule lists the liability, property and casualty, workers’ compensation, directors’ and officers’ liability, key man, surety bonds, and other insurance contracts or policies (collectively, the “ Insurance Policies ”) that insure the business of the EnTrust Entities or the employees, trustees, directors or officers of the EnTrust Funds. Such Insurance Policies are adequate to protect such business and the amounts of coverage maintained by the EnTrust Entities are commensurate with amounts customarily carried by Persons conducting business similar to the business of the EnTrust Entities, of similar size and financial condition. The EnTrust Contributor has reasonably determined in good faith that such Insurance Policies are valid and binding, in full force and effect, and enforceable according to their terms, except as enforceability may be limited by applicable Enforceability Limitations. The premiums due and payable under such Insurance Policies have been paid, in compliance with their terms and conditions, and none of the EnTrust Entities has reason to believe that any insurer would not renew any such Insurance Policy on substantially the same terms and conditions. There are no historical gaps in insurance coverage maintained by the EnTrust Entities and current coverage limits under such Insurance Policies are not significantly diminished as a result of claims paid. Section 4.26(b) of the EnTrust Disclosure Schedule sets forth a list of all material claims, if any, made by any EnTrust Entity during the past three (3) years against an insurer in respect of coverage under any Insurance Policy or other insurance policy maintained by any EnTrust Entity during such period, and there have been no denials of claims nor reservation of rights letters with regard to such claims.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Title VII. See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 678, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 89 (1983). As a result of the PDA, the Title VII terms "because of sex” or "on the basis of sex” include discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). 2 . Evans provides that when a bona fide seniority system gives present effect to a past act of discrimination, an employer is entitled to treat that past act as lawful after a plaintiff respondent fails to file a charge of discrimination within the time prescribed under the statute. United Air Lines v. Evans, 431 U.S. at 557-58, 97 S.Ct. 1885. 3 . The court expresses no opinion on whether Woods’s claim is premature. See Maki, 383 F.3d at 745, 2004 WL 1961517 at *3-4 Options: A. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered B. holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach C. holding that the oneyear period begins to run when the mandate of the court of appeals issues D. holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made E. holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court
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 notice, demand, request, or other communication that any party hereto may be required or may desire to give hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly given (a) if hand delivered, when delivered; (b) if mailed by United States Certified Mail (postage prepaid, return receipt requested), three business days after mailing; (c) if by Federal Express or other nationally recognized overnight courier service, on the next business day after delivered to such courier service for delivery on the next business day; or (d) if by facsimile or e-mail transmission, on the day of transmission so long as a copy is sent on the same day by Federal Express or other nationally recognized overnight courier, to the addresses set forth in Section 2 hereof, or at such other address as the party to be served with notice has furnished in writing to the party seeking or desiring to serve notice as a place for the service of notice.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: In particular, the district court adopted the following calculation, which had been proposed by the government: (average price of each commercial sex act) x(average estimated number of commercial sex acts performed) = restitution. The district court found that the average price for each sex act was $170. It then multiplied $170 by the estimated number of sex acts each victim performed and held “that the following restitution amounts are warranted: (1) for Y.H., $8,500 ($170 x 50 acts); (2) for J.C., $11,050 ($170 x 65 acts).” Pursuant to its order filed April 30, 2008, the district court held further that the $4,226 seized at the time of Defendants’ arrests should be distributed equally to J.C. and Y.H. and credited toward the full amount of restitution. The district court t Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). We therefore vacate the restitution order and Options: A. holding that restitution in the amount of 1750000 constituted plain error because the actual loss was only 1725000 B. holding that where the government has not presented evidence at the hearing concerning the appropriate amount of restitution the imposition of the restitution order constitutes plain error C. holding that no plain error occurred where any hypothetical minor error in calculating total loss would not have affected the ultimate amount of restitution because the court imposed only 30000 of restitution after calculating a total loss of 500000 D. holding that the sixth amendment does not require factfinding by a jury for purposes of calculating the amount of restitution E. holding that the district courts error in calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the error had no impact on the defendants sentence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that no plain error occurred where any hypothetical minor error in calculating total loss would not have affected the ultimate amount of restitution because the court imposed only 30000 of restitution after calculating a total loss of 500000
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: punishment when other subdivisions within Minn.Stat. § 609.66 refer specifically to crimes committed in a park. Compare id., subd. la(b)(l) (authorizing a more severe penalty for a nondrive-by reckless discharge of a firearm when committed in a park zone) with id., subd. le (outlining penalties for a felony drive-by shooting without consideration of location). B. Other bases for departure We next consider whether the other factors identified by the lower courts would justify a departure, specifically the indiscriminate firing of multiple shots into a group. Appellant argues that a departure on these facts was an abuse of discretion as they are the predicate facts upon which the presumptive sentence for a drive-by shooting is based. See State v. Brusven, 327 N.W.2d 591, 594 (Minn.1982) (<HOLDING>). The definitions of the relevant crimes are Options: A. holding district court correctly reversed a departure sentence where the trial court failed to provide written reasons for the departure B. holding that trial court must determine presumptive amount under guidelines before considering other factors C. holding circuit courts decision to depart from the presumptive sentencing recommendation and impose a prison sentence was reversible error where defendant objected on the basis that the state failed to give notice of aggravating factors that would justify a dispositional departure from the presumptive sentencing recommendation and the trial court failed to state on the record a reason for its departure D. holding that conduct from dismissed counts cannot be relied upon as a basis for departure E. holding it was unfair for the trial court to rely upon factors already considered in the presumptive sentence as a basis for a durational departure

assistant: The best answer is E. holding it was unfair for the trial court to rely upon factors already considered in the presumptive sentence as a basis for a durational departure
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 Sections 2.2 through 2.4 below and Section 7, if the Grantee remains employed by the Company, the RSUs shall vest in accordance with the vesting schedule set forth above. Each date on which the RSUs vest is hereinafter referred to as a “Vesting Date.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Vesting Date can be any earlier than the day immediately after the day which is twelve (12) months and thirty (30) days following the Date of Grant (the period from the Date of Grant until the day which is twelve (12) months and thirty (30) days following the Date of Grant being hereinafter referred to as the “Initial Restriction Period.” Except as otherwise provided herein, on the Vesting Date, a number of Shares equal to the number of vested RSUs shall be issued to the Grantee free and clear of all restrictions imposed by this Agreement (except those imposed by Sections 3.3 and 7 below). As soon as practicable (and no later than thirty (30) days) after the Vesting Date, the Company shall transfer such Shares to an unrestricted account in the name of the Grantee (or, if the Grantee has died, to his or her surviving spouse or, if none, to the Grantee’s estate). For purposes of this Agreement, employment with a Subsidiary of the Company or service as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company or a Subsidiary shall be considered employment with the Company.

assistant: Vesting
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: in their second assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to continue trial because it did not consider the factors in State v. Unger (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 21 O.O.3d 41, 423 N.E.2d 1078. As we overruled appellants’ first assignment of error, finding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants additional time to gather rebuttal evidence, the lower court’s finding of summary judgment in favor of appellees stands. Thus, appellants’ second assignment of error is rendered moot: it is of no consequence to appellants whether we find the trial court to have erred in denying appellants’ request for a continuance of the trial. See James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 788, 791, 600 N.E.2d 736, 738 (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, we will briefly address Options: A. holding that matters of statutory construction are questions of law for the court to decide rather than issues of fact B. holding that courts must decide pure questions of statutory construction C. recognizing a judges duty to address the jurys questions D. holding that it is not E. holding that it is not the duty of a court to decide purely academic or abstract questions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that it is not the duty of a court to decide purely academic or abstract questions
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 undersigned [Grantor][Senior-Priority Secured Party][Junior-Priority Secured Party] hereby agrees, for the enforceable benefit of all existing and future Senior-Priority Secured Parties and Junior-Priority Secured Parties that the undersigned is [(and the [Senior-Priority][Junior-Priority] Secured Parties represented by it are)] bound by the terms, conditions and provisions of the Intercreditor Agreement to the extent set forth therein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: SBG will pay or reimburse Employee from time to time for all expenses incurred by Employee during the Employment Term on behalf of SBG in accordance with corporate policies established by SBG; provided, that (a) such expenses must be reasonable business expenses, and (b) Employee supplies to SBG itemized accounts or receipts in accordance with SBG’s procedures and policies with respect to reimbursement of expenses in effect from time to time. To ensure compliance with section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, (i) the amount of expenses eligible for reimbursement during a calendar year may not affect the expenses eligible for reimbursement in any other calendar year; (ii) the reimbursement of an eligible expense will be made as soon as practicable following the time when Employee has satisfied her entitlement to reimbursement, but no later than the last day of the calendar year following the year in which the expense is incurred; (iii) the right to reimbursement is not subject to liquidation or exchange for another benefit; and (iv) in no event may Employee, directly or indirectly, designate the calendar year of any payment.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: excuse jury questions submitted in questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5—whether Bartush’s subsequently-occurring breach was excused on the grounds of a prior material breach or on other applicable grounds. See Mustang Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d at 199; Texas Pattern Jury Charges: Business PJC 101.2; see also Cont’l Dredging, Inc., 120 S.W.3d at 394. And the jury determined that it was not. Because by virtue of its “no” answer to question 4, the jury found that Cimco’s failure to comply was not material and because by virtue of its no answers to questions 4 and 5, the jury found that Bartush’s failure to comply was not excused, the jury’s answer to question 3—finding that Cimco breached first—was rendered immaterial. See, e.g., Spencer v. Eagle Star Ins. Co. of Am., 876 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex. 1994) (<HOLDING>). The jury’s verdict, viewed as a whole, was Options: A. holding that the disputed issue with respect to the state law bar was properly submitted to the jury B. holding that trial court did not commit reversible error when it submitted admissibility of evidence question to jury because the trial court had independently decided the question C. holding that solicitors statement during closing that defense witnesses have lied was merely a question which was submitted to the jury for its determination when it made its findings and returned its verdict D. holding that a jury question is immaterial when it was properly submitted but has been rendered immaterial by other findings E. holding it is a question of fact

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a jury question is immaterial when it was properly submitted but has been rendered immaterial by other findings
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: hypothetical situations can be conjured up, shading imperceptibly from the circumstances of this case and by gradations producing practical differences despite seemingly logical extensions.... On the facts of this case the conviction ... has been obtained by methods that offend the Due Process Clause.”). Further, the Supreme Court found offensive not just the stomach pumping, but the entire course of the proceedings — the illegal entry into the defendant’s home, the use of force to open his mouth, and the “forcible extraction of his stomach’s contents.” Id., 342 U.S. at 172, 72 S.Ct. 205. In the present case, Lewis concedes that the vehicle stop and the order for him to get out of the car were legal. See Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41, 48 (1997) (<HOLDING>). There was also testimony that the police and Options: A. holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop B. holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction C. holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop D. holding that police officer may order passengers to remain in vehicle with hands up during traffic stop E. holding police officers making a traffic stop could order passengers out of the stopped car

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties acknowledge that remedies at law will be inadequate remedies for breach of this Agreement and consequently agree that this Agreement shall be enforceable by specific performance. The remedy of specific performance shall be cumulative of all of the rights and remedies at law or in equity of the parties under 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive shall use his best efforts and skills to truthfully, accurately, and promptly prepare, maintain, and preserve all records and reports that the Company may, from time to time, request or require, fully account for all money, records, equipment, materials, or other property belonging to the Company of which he may have custody, and promptly pay and deliver the same whenever he may be directed to do so by the Board.

assistant: Records
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 ODC. Second, the parties stipulated that Mr. Duffy’s conduct was knowing and intentional—the most culpable mental states. See In re Hernandez, 46 So.3d 1244 (La. 2010) (stating attorney knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to public, legal system, and legal profession by failing to appear in court on several occasions and failing to cooperate with ODC).- Third, we find there is ample basis to support the ODC’s finding that Mr. Duffy’s conduct caused harm. Mr. Duffy adversely affected his clients by failing to attend hearings on their behalf and failing to -respond - to his client relating to an appeal. Likewise, Mr. Duffy’s conduct toward the ODC and his criminal conduct are harmful to the public and to the legal profession. See In re Baer, 21 So.3d 941, 943 (La. 2009) (<HOLDING>). Regarding the fourth Jordan factor, we have Options: A. holding that the breach occurs when the union acts against the interest of its members B. holding in the context of a case involving the availability for public inspection of criminal docket books that files in the possession of the clerk of the criminal court of the city of new york are public records which may be fully examined by any person unless the papers have been sealed from public scrutiny by the court or by the terms of a statute C. recognizing serious harm results when members of the legal profession engage in criminal acts which give rise to a lack of confidence by members of the public in those who are officers of the court D. recognizing right of this court to regulate and discipline members of the bar E. holding that an organization whose members are injured may represent those members even where the organization itself cannot show injury

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing serious harm results when members of the legal profession engage in criminal acts which give rise to a lack of confidence by members of the public in those who are officers of the court
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: At the Funding Date and after giving effect to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, each of the Parent and the Company will (i) have capital, cash flows and sources of working capital financing sufficient to carry on its business and transactions and all business and transactions in which it is about to engage, (ii) be able to pay its debts as they mature, and (iii) have assets (tangible and intangible) whose fair salable value exceeds its total liabilities (including contingent, subordinated, unmatured and unliquidated liabilities).

assistant: Solvency
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: stay that applied in the Debt- or's or Gerova's bankruptcy cases. Thus, it was not deciding the extent of the Debtor’s current rights in the property, and not deciding whether there is a cause of action against subsequent transferees under fraudulent transfer law. (Oral Arg. Tr., at 26:11-23, 30:7-15.) 6 . The Bankruptcy Court also rejected the attempt to characterize the Gerova transfer as a “conversion.” (Id. at 26:1-10.) 7 . This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal because the Bankruptcy Court Order was a final order that resolved the discrete issue of whether the Foreclosure Order violated the automatic stay, and the Bankruptcy Court has not indicated that it contemplates further proceedings on this issue. See, e.g., In re Quigley Co., Inc., 676 F.3d 45, 51 (2d Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); Sharf v. BC Liquidating, LLC, No. 14-cv-7320, Options: A. holding that bankruptcy court order that a stay applied to a particular party was a final order and noting that bankruptcy court orders lifting or denying relief from an automatic stay are final for purposes of appeal B. holding that an appeal challenging a bankruptcy court order lifting the automatic stay became moot when the underlying bankruptcy case was dismissed C. holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 D. holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a trustees claim to immunity was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine E. holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that bankruptcy court order that a stay applied to a particular party was a final order and noting that bankruptcy court orders lifting or denying relief from an automatic stay are final for purposes of appeal