flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to all applicable laws, rules and regulations, the Committee shall have the power to amend this Agreement at any time provided that such amendment does not adversely affect, in any material respect, the Participant’s rights under this Agreement without the Participant’s consent. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall have broad authority to alter or amend this Agreement and the terms and conditions applicable to PSUs without the consent of the Participant to the extent it deems necessary or desirable in its sole discretion (i) to comply with or take into account changes in, or rescissions or interpretations of, applicable tax laws, securities laws, employment laws, accounting rules or standards and other applicable laws, rules, regulations, guidance, ruling, judicial decision or legal requirement, (ii) to ensure that the Earned PSUs are not subject to taxes, interest and penalties under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “ Code ”), (iii) to take into account unusual or nonrecurring events or market conditions, or (iv) in any other manner set forth in Section 16 of the Plan. Any amendment, modification or termination shall, upon adoption, become and be binding on all persons affected thereby without requirement for consent or other action with respect thereto by any such person. The Committee shall give written notice to the Participant in accordance with Section 13(a) of any such amendment, modification or termination as promptly as practicable after the adoption thereof. The foregoing shall not restrict the ability of the Participant and the Company by mutual consent to alter or amend the terms of the PSUs in any manner that is consistent with the Plan and approved by the Committee.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you receive notification from the company stating that a takedown notice was received regarding content or activity for which you are responsible , you may contend the takedown notice within seven days , in which case only will your contact details be given to the notice 's sender .

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: IHG hereby releases, discharges, and hold harmless BEGI, Inc. (as well as its respective officers, directors, shareholders, managers, subsidiaries, members, partners, owners, principals, affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, parents, contractors, attorneys, predecessors, successors, assigns, insurers, associates, agents, representatives, employers, and employees) from all actions, claims, damages, and liabilities (of any kind or nature, without regard to amount, known or unknown, accrued or unaccrued) arising from or relating to working capital loan in the amount of $ 400,000.00 from IHG to BEGI, referenced herein or the any other matters whatsoever in which liability may be asserted for any claim or cause of action except as performance is required as set forth in this Agreement.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for posteon-viction relief on the basis of ineffectiveness of counsel. The state also implies that the logical extension of permitting a full hearing in a case such as this would be “monthly hearings [to] chart every [prisoner’s] psychological improvement during [his] period of incarceration.” Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (1982) provides in part that “The court may summarily deny a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same petitioner and may summarily deny a petition when, the issues raised therein have previously been decided by the Minnesota supreme court in the same case.” This statute is consistent with Standards Relating to Post-Conviction Remedies § 6.2 (Approved Draft 1968). Cases bearing on this include State v. Myers, 273 N.W.2d 656 (Minn.1978) (<HOLDING>); Thompson v. Wood, 272 N.W.2d 357 (Minn.1978) Options: A. holding that defendant could not raise in a 2255 motion an issue previously decided on direct criminal appeal B. holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding C. holding that an ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under 2255 whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal D. holding that petitioner in posteonviction proceeding may not raise matter that he raised and which was decided against him on direct appeal E. holding in part that a convicted defendant is not entitled to raise in a posteonviction proceeding any matter which he raised on direct appeal or which he knew about but did not raise in his direct appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that petitioner in posteonviction proceeding may not raise matter that he raised and which was decided against him on direct appeal
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: As a threshold matter, DiPietro contends that Maine does not recognize a cause of action to obtain a domestic judgment on a foreign judgment and that the trial court therefore erred by not dismissing Faith Temple’s complaint. Although DiPietro correctly asserts that there is no statute affirmatively establishing a cause of action to seek a judgment based on a foreign judgment, a review of Maine’s common law history of enforcing foreign judgments reveals that such a .claim exists. Therefore, despite Faith Temple’s failure to articulate a legal basis for its complaint, we must reject DiPietro’s argumen ment” has its genesis in English common law, and was recognized in Massachusetts at the time of the founding of the United States. See Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. (9 Tyng) 462, 466 (1813) (<HOLDING>); Bartlet v. Knight, 1 Mass. (1 Tyng) 401, 404 Options: A. holding that reporting of historically accurate debt may violate the fcra when the reporting did not include that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy or that the debt was in dispute B. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or C. holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt D. recognizing that pursuant to statute actions of debt may be brought upon any judgment for debt damages or costs rendered in any court of record of the united states E. holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that pursuant to statute actions of debt may be brought upon any judgment for debt damages or costs rendered in any court of record of the united states
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Delaware applicable to agreements made and to be performed wholly within such jurisdiction. Each of the parties hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally consents to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Illinois and of the United States of America, in each case, located in Chicago, Illinois for any litigation arising out of or relating to this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby (and agrees not to commence any litigation relating thereto except in such courts). Each of the parties hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives any objection to the laying of venue of any litigation arising out of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby in the courts of the State of Illinois or the United States of America, in each case, located in Chicago, Illinois and hereby further irrevocably and unconditionally waives and agrees not to plead or claim in any such court that any such litigation brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY IN CONNECTION WITH ANY LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Employee agrees to refrain from any disparagement, defamation, libel, or slander of any of the Releasees, and agrees to refrain from any tortious interference with the contracts and relationships of any of the Releasees. Employee shall direct any inquiries by potential future employers to the Company’s human resources department and A10 agrees to a neutral employment reference, and upon inquiry, the Company shall provide only Employee’s job title, dates of employment, and if authorized by employee in writing, his salary information.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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 counterparts (and by different parties hereto on different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract, and shall become effective as provided in Section 10.03 . Delivery of an executed signature page to this Agreement by facsimile or other electronic transmission ( e.g. , .pdf) shall be as effective as delivery of a manually signed counterpart of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: A and Candidate B. If a resident of the district strongly favors the election of Candidate A — and strongly disfavors the election of Candidate B — the resident may choose to spend his personal funds to advocate the defeat of Candidate B. Under the independent expenditure provision, however, if the amount of the resident’s expenditure of personal funds — when combined with the amount of Candidate A’s own expenditures- — surpasses Candidate B’s expenditure limit, the state will provide additional funding to Candidate B to make up for the supposed inequality. In this way, the independent expenditure provision clearly acts as a “penalty” on the resident’s choice “to spend personal funds for campaign speech.” Id. at 2771; see also Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356, 1359-62 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). As the resident spends more and more money Options: A. holding that a similar motion to strike under california state law applies in federal court B. holding mere deviation unconstitutional C. holding that similar argument did not raise a colorable question of law for purposes of jurisdiction D. recognizing similar duties E. holding unconstitutional a similar law penalizing independent expenditures

assistant: The best answer is E. holding unconstitutional a similar law penalizing independent expenditures
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: Delivery and sale of the Common Shares and payment of the Aggregate Subscription Price will be completed concurrently (the “ Closing ”) at the offices of counsel to the Corporation at the Closing Time or at such other time and place as the Corporation and the Subscriber may agree. If, prior to the Closing Time, the terms and conditions contained in this Subscription Agreement have been complied with to the satisfaction of the Subscriber, or waived by the Subscriber, the Subscriber shall deliver to the Corporation payment of the Aggregate Subscription Price for all of the Common Shares sold pursuant to this Subscription Agreement against the issuance by the Corporation of the Common Shares and such other documentation as may be required pursuant to this Subscription Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in a suspect verdict or a trial that was fundamentally unfair or unreliable. See Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369, 372, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). Given the strong case against Medearis and the uphill climb he faced, by virtue of his own pre- and post-incident conduct, there is no reasonable probability that the letter, if the same had been admitted and used to impeach Whiting, would have created a reasonable doubt with respect to his guilt and changed the outcome of the case. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694-96, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Medearis, 380 F.3d at 1058-60. Counsel and the trial court’s handling of the letter did not so upset the adversarial balance between the defense and prosecution to warrant a new trial. See Odem v. Hopkins, 382 F.3d 846, 851-52 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777, Options: A. holding that even if the error complained of was structural and affected substantial rights the fourth prong of olano was not met because of the overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted evidence of petitioners guilt B. holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt C. holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt D. holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt E. holding stricklands prejudice prong was not met because of overwhelming evidence of guilt

assistant: The best answer is E. holding stricklands prejudice prong was not met because of overwhelming evidence of guilt
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: Legislature modified the words used in section 38.001 in order to preserve the precedent of excluding governmental entities from the class of parties against whom attorneys’ fees could be recovered. See Crespi, 65 SMU L. Rev. at 73-74; Civ. Prac. & Rem. § 38.001 re-visor’s note 2. In doing so, the Legislature excluded from that class other legal entities against whom the predecessor statute had allowed attorneys’ fees to be recovered. See Fleming, 425 S.W.3d at 575. Even if we concluded that the broader effects of this change were unintended or under-inclusive, we could not conclude that application of the statute according to its plain meaning would lead to an absurd result. See Combs, 401 S.W.3d at 630; see also Greco v. Nat’l Football League, 116 F.Supp.3d 744, 752 (N.D.Tex.2015) (<HOLDING>). We hold that section 38.001 of the Civil Options: A. holding plainfaced interpretation of section 38001 does not lead to absurd results B. holding that section 704 does not bar district court jurisdiction when the claims court does not provide a special and adequate review procedure for that claim C. holding that section 2621 does not apply to claims for breach of warranty D. holding that section 311034 does not make section 890041 jurisdictional E. holding that section 1495 does not stand alone and must be read in conjunction with section 2513

assistant: The best answer is A. holding plainfaced interpretation of section 38001 does not lead to absurd results
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: fact and we conclude that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Alves v. Hometown Newspapers, Inc., 857 A.2d 743, 750 (R.I.2004). Although we recognize that there are situations in which the viability of a particular statute of limitations defense will present a factual issue that must be resolved by the trier of fact, it is also true that there are many situations in which the question can be resolved in accordance with Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Morris v. Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico, 27 F.3d 746, 748 (1st Cir.1994) (“In an appropriate case, [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 56 can be employed to determine the applicability of a statutory time bar to a particular set of facts.”); Maughan v. SW Servicing, Inc., 758 F.2d 1381, 1387 (10th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Bader v. Alpine Ski Shop, Inc., 505 Options: A. holding that the issue of defendants actual knowledge should not be resolved on summary judgment but should be left to the trier of fact B. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed C. holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact D. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed E. recognizing that summary judgment should not be granted when there is a viable issue of fact about the beginning of the limitations period but also stating that cases involving statute of limitations defenses frequently lend themselves to summary disposition

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that summary judgment should not be granted when there is a viable issue of fact about the beginning of the limitations period but also stating that cases involving statute of limitations defenses frequently lend themselves to summary disposition
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 Loan Party, Subsidiary or, to the knowledge of any Loan Party, any director, officer, employee, agent, affiliate or representative thereof, is or is owned or controlled by any individual or entity that is currently the subject or target of any Sanction or is located, organized or resident in a Designated Jurisdiction, in each case to the extent dealings with such are prohibited under any Sanction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The invalidity, illegality or unenforceability of any provision hereof shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision. Upon a determination that any provision is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the parties shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible in a mutually acceptable manner in order that the transactions contemplated hereby be consummated as originally contemplated to the greatest extent possible.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In addition to all other amounts payable to Executive under this Agreement, the Company shall pay or reimburse Executive for legal fees (including without limitation, any and all court costs, arbitration costs, and attorneys' fees and expenses), incurred by Executive in connection with or as a result of any claim, action or proceeding brought by the Company or Executive with respect to or arising out of this Agreement or any provision hereof, unless, in the case of an action brought by Executive, it is determined by an arbitrator or by a court of competent jurisdiction that such action was frivolous and was not brought in good faith. Such legal fees shall be paid or reimbursed by the Company from time to time within five business days following receipt by the Company of copies of bills for such fees and if the Company fails to make such payment within such five day period, the Company shall pay Executive interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum.

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: All proceeds received by the Company from each Advance made by the Lender under this Line of Credit shall be used by the Company for expenses incurred by the Company in connection with working capital and any other operating expenses determined to be necessary by the Company.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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 expressly amended herein, the Employment Agreement will continue in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms. This Second Amendment may not be modified or amended, and no breach will be deemed to be waived, unless agreed to in writing by Employee and a duly authorized designee of the Company. The headings and captions in this Second Amendment are for convenience only and in no way define or describe the scope or content of any provision of this Second Amendment. This Second Amendment is a Massachusetts contract and shall be construed under and be governed in all respects by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts without giving effect to any conflict of laws principles that would result in the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction. This Second Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be an original and all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was convicted “of violating an order obtained pursuant to Section 6320 and 6389 of the [California] Family Code.” Although Petitioner was charged with “violating an order obtained pursuant to Section 6320 and 6389,” he did not plead guilty “as charged in the Complaint,” see Vidal, 504 F.3d at 1087, or plead guilty to “violating an order obtained pursuant to Section 6320 and 6389,” see United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 468 F.3d 604, 613 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding that recitation of the statutory elements is insufficient to establish the nature of a prior conviction where the statute of conviction is overly broad). In such a circumstance, we have held that the modified categorical approach is not satisfied. See United States v. Lopez-Montanez, 421 F.3d 926, 931 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Kovac, 367 F.3d Options: A. holding documents insufficient when they simply restate the language of the statute and defendant enters a plea without elaboration B. recognizing that a 2422b indictment that merely tracks the language of the statute without identifying an underlying statute may be insufficient C. holding that there was no jurisdictional defect when the language of the charging document tracked the statutory language even though the facts proffered at the plea hearing were insufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime D. holding that boards findings were insufficient where they merely repeated language of relevant statute and rejecting claim that voting foims of the members of the board which also simply mirrored the language of the relevant statute without specific findings were findings sufficient to permit judicial review E. recognizing that where a defendant enters a plea to a crime without having been informed of the crimes elements the plea is invalid

assistant: The best answer is A. holding documents insufficient when they simply restate the language of the statute and defendant enters a plea without elaboration
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: however, that rather than attribute Hemphill’s acceptance of the plea offer to coercion by the district court, we may logically conclude that Hemphill accepted the plea offer on September 28 because the Government had reduced the agreed-to sentence from seven years to five years. But what “we do not and cannot know [is] whether [Hemphill] would have accepted the plea agreement absent participation by the court.” Id. The record in fact suggests otherwise. Hemphill indicated on September 20 that he wanted to proceed to trial, he was diligently preparing for trial, and he gave no contrary indication prior to accepting the plea offer on the morning of September 28. The district court imparted the knowledge that several defendants who . 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 2340, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (<HOLDING>). IV. The district court did more than offer Options: A. holding that a reasonable probability is one that in the judgment of the reviewing court is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding citation omitted B. holding that a new trial was warranted where there is reasonable probability that the false testimony introduced by the government influenced the outcome of the trial C. holding that to establish stricklandpierce prejudice in the appellate representation context the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the direct appeal proceeding would have been different but for counsels deficient performance D. holding reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome E. holding that improper prosecutorial references did not raise a reasonable probability that but for the remarks the outcome would be different due to sufficient independent evidence establishing guilt

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a reasonable probability is one that in the judgment of the reviewing court is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding citation omitted
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 "[t]he right to conduct such a search incident to arrest is absolute and not determinative of any concern for officer safety or destruction of evidence,” the district court stated, “[T]he magistrate judge’s reliance on the 'search incident to arrest' exception ... is erroneous and contrary to law. Post-Ganf, the 'search incident to arrest’ exception cannot legitimize a warrantless search in the absence of a need to protect officers and safeguard evidence.” Rather than discussing whether Perdoma was able to access the bag during the search, however, the district court instead found the search valid on an alternate ground, concluding that the officers could reasonably believe that "further evidence of a drug offense would be found in [Perdoma’s] bag.” See Gant, 129 S.Ct. at 1719 (<HOLDING>). We read the district court’s memorandum and Options: A. holding that the vehicle of a recent occupant may be searched incident to arrest as an exception to the warrant requirement where it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest B. holding that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle quoting thornton v united states 541 us 615 632 124 sct 2127 158 led2d 905 2004 scalia x concurring C. holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest D. holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment E. holding that the rule announced in crawford v washington 541 us 36 124 sct 1354 158 led2d 177 2004 applies retroactively on collateral review

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle quoting thornton v united states 541 us 615 632 124 sct 2127 158 led2d 905 2004 scalia x concurring
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: Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 879, 113 S.Ct. 226, 121 L.Ed.2d 163 (1992), the court addressed a challenge that the defendant’s trial was untimely under the 180-day IAD requirement. The court stated that the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174, and the IAD speedy trial provision serve the same purposes. 953 F.2d at 1172. The court held that since the Speedy Trial Act excludes a delay attributable to a defendant’s pretrial motions under Section 3161(h)(1)(F), the IAD’s time requirements are also tolled. Id. The Second and Fourth Circuits have also concluded that time periods excluded under the Speedy Trial Act likewise should be excluded under the IAD. See United States v. Cephas, 937 F.2d 816 (2nd Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1037, 112 S.Ct. 884, 116 L.Ed.2d 788 (1992)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Hines, 717 F.2d 1481 (4th Options: A. holding that the plain language of the rule broadens a courts discretion to extend time for service even if good cause has not been shown B. holding that delay created by defendant in mistakenly agreeing to a waiver of his speedy trial rights is excludable C. holding that review of good cause determination to avoid dismissal for speedy trial purposes is abuse of discretion D. holding that the for good cause shown tolling provision encompasses the same circumstances as the rules for excludable time under the speedy trial act E. holding that motion challenging pretrial detention was excludable under act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the for good cause shown tolling provision encompasses the same circumstances as the rules for excludable time under the speedy trial act
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: or whether Marron’s car was stopped or moving when, it was struck. 80 . 456 P.2d 453 (Alaska 1969). 81 . Id. at 457-58. 82 . Id. at 458. 83 . See, e.g., INA Life Ins. Co. v. Brundin, 533 P.2d 236, 244 (Alaska 1975) (though medical expert speculated as to exact cause of cardiac arrest and "freely admitted he had no data on which to base an opinion,” his conclusion that cardiac arrest was surgery-related was not speculative; conclusion was based on statistical unlikelihood of cardiac arrest and fact that known potential causes were mainly surgery-related). 84 . See, e.g., Sirotiak v. H.C. Price Co., 758 P.2d 1271 (Alaska 1988). 85 . 770 A.2d 36 (Del.2001). 86 . Id. at 38. 87 . Id. 88 . Id. at 38, 40, 43. 89 . See, e.g., Mason v. Lynch, 151 Md.App. 17, 822 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Spedick v. Murphy, 266 N.J.Super. 573, 630 Options: A. holding that trial court acted within its authority in rejecting a plea bargain in a capital case B. holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony C. holding that trial court in lowspeed impact case acted within its discretion in admitting photographic evidence without expert testimony D. holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence E. holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that trial court in lowspeed impact case acted within its discretion in admitting photographic evidence without expert testimony
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: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 8 , if a Force Majeure Event lasts for more than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive Days or for more than hundred eighty (180) Days in the aggregate during any twelve (12) month period, the Non-Affected Party may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to the Affected Party; provided , however , that such one hundred eighty (180) Day period, in either case, shall be extended by an additional ninety (90) Days if the Affected Party shall, prior to the expiration of such ninety (90) Day period, have submitted to the Non-Affected Party a remedial action plan that sets forth a reasonably feasible course of repairs, improvements, changes to operations, or other actions that would permit the Affected Party to perform its obligations under this Agreement as soon as reasonably practicable and such Party pursues the remedial action plan in a commercially reasonable and diligent manner. Termination of this Agreement by a Party under this Section 8 shall be without liability to such Party; provided that such termination shall not affect any rights or obligations that may have accrued prior to such termination or that expressly or by implication are intended to survive termination, whether resulting from the event giving rise to the right to terminate or otherwise.

assistant: Terminations
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: Notwithstanding any suspension or termination of this Agreement, the Parties shall continue to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement that reasonably require some action or forbearance after such suspension or termination, including those relating to confidentiality obligations, audit rights, warranties, compliance with Applicable Law, governing law, dispute resolution, indemnities, and limitation of liability.

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 BE GOVERNED IN ALL RESPECTS, INCLUDING VALIDITY, INTERPRETATION AND EFFECT, BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS EXECUTED AND TO BE PERFORMED WHOLLY WITHIN SUCH STATE WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES OF SUCH STATE THAT WOULD CAUSE THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Mexicans to vote, hold office, and sit upon juries, but it does not protect a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. See N.M. Const, art. VII, § 3. That provision does not correspond to the impartial jury provision of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or to the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. See U.S. Const, amends. VI, XIV. Defendant did not argue before the district court that the rights of New Mexico jurors were being violated, and the district court did not make a ruling on that issue. Defendant did not cite N.M. Const, art. II, § 14, the provision that protects the right to an impartial jury. Therefore, he did not preserve any argument under the state constitution. See State v. Janzen, 2007-NMCA-134, ¶ 11, 142 N.M. 638, 168 P.3d 768 (<HOLDING>). {12} Similarly, while Defendant also cites Options: A. holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly B. holding that although this court affords broad discretion to the district court in determining the type of investigation necessary to determine juror bias the district court must provide the defendant a meaningful opportunity to prove the same C. holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports D. holding that this court does not review decisions of a district court not to depart downward unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion to make such a departure E. holding that preservation for review requires a fair ruling or decision by the district court in order to provide the lower court with an opportunity to correct any mistake give the opposing party an opportunity to demonstrate why the district court should rule in its favor and create a record which enables this court to make informed decisions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that preservation for review requires a fair ruling or decision by the district court in order to provide the lower court with an opportunity to correct any mistake give the opposing party an opportunity to demonstrate why the district court should rule in its favor and create a record which enables this court to make informed decisions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was made.” 15. The “new value” provided by Crofton in the form of loans or advances need not have remained unpaid in order to offset previous transfers. E & C has not argued to the contrary, but the Court nonetheless highlights the point in order to make clear why it is not necessary to determine whether Crofton later received repayment or reimbursement for any “new value.” Several courts have suggested that, under the Bankruptcy Code, the “new value” defense does not require that the “new value” remain unpaid. Cf. In re IRFM, Inc., 52 F.3d 228, 231-32 (9th Cir.1995) (discussing various approaches to determining whether “new value” for which the debtor later pays can offset prior preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547); In re Jones Truck Lines, 130 F.3d 323, 329 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); In re Chez Foley, Inc., 211 B.R. 25, 27-29 Options: A. holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition B. holding that under 11 usc 547c4 a later payment in exchange for new value only deprives the defendant of the new value defense if the later payment is an otherwise unavoidable transfer C. holding bankruptcy courts determination that payment on account was made for new value erroneous as matter of law D. holding new value exception exists E. holding that new value exception still exists

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under 11 usc 547c4 a later payment in exchange for new value only deprives the defendant of the new value defense if the later payment is an otherwise unavoidable transfer
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: for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review “whether substantial evidence supports a finding by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that [Valenzuela] abandoned [her] lawful permanent residence in the United States.” Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.Sd 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the government met its burden of showing Valenzuela abandoned her lawful permanent resident status because the record does not compel the conclusion that she consistently intended promptly to return to the United States. See Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512, 1514 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Chavez-Ramirez v. INS, 792 F.2d 932, Options: A. holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial B. holding that the relevant intent is not the intent to return ultimately but the intent to return to the united states within a relatively short period C. holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent D. holding that the only showing of intent required for a vcea claim is the intent to do the act involved E. holding that removal for temporary employment with intent to return was not abandonment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the relevant intent is not the intent to return ultimately but the intent to return to the united states within a relatively short period
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 Plan has been adopted by the Committee. Modifications to, or termination of, this Plan can occur only in writing through official action of the Board, the Committee, or a designee of the Board or the Committee. Any communications or other purported modifications to this Plan that have not been so adopted are void. In no case can this Plan be modified or terminated, or the eligibility of an Executive revoked for two years following a Change in Control.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 86 Ark. App. 47, 158 S.W.3d 726 (2004). In Machost v. Simkins, supra, we held that a court should not consider an affidavit wherein a juror attempts to relate the reasons behind the jury’s damage award. There, the plaintiff, Machost, submitted a juror affidavit to the court explaining why the jury had mistakenly awarded her only $2,000 when the evidence clearly showed that she had incurred $10,000 in reasonable and necessary medical expenses. We held that, “[bjecause Machost has not alleged that some outside influence affected the jury’s deliberations, this court cannot consider the affidavit or its allegations that the jury was confused when it awarded Machost only $2,000.” 86 Ark. App. at 54, 158 S.W.3d at 730; see also Bailey v. Stewart, 236 Ark. 80, 83, 364 S.W.2d 662, 664 (1963) (<HOLDING>). The juror affidavits in this case do not Options: A. holding that to offset a jurys damage award a separate thirdparty insurance award must cover the same loss which served as the basis for the jury award B. holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did C. holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award D. recognizing that a court can exercise its discretion not to award costs to a prevailing party as long as the court states its reasons for refusing to permit the award E. holding in a case that predates the arkansas rules of evidence that the use of a juror affidavit to explain the jurys intention regarding its damage award was incompetent for reasons of public policy

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in a case that predates the arkansas rules of evidence that the use of a juror affidavit to explain the jurys intention regarding its damage award was incompetent for reasons of public policy
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: States v. Williams, 260 F.3d 160, 165 (2d Cir.2001) (“[A] district court may accept or reject a Rule 11(e)(1)(C) sentence bargain, but may in no event modify it.”)). In rejecting the first plea agreement, the district court so advised Penev as required under Rule 11, and it neither suggested terms for a plea that it would be inclined to accept nor otherwise interfered with subsequent plea negotiations. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion, let alone commit plain error, in rejecting the first plea agreement. Penev also argues to this court that the district court was “compromised” and “improperly influenced” when it accepted his guilty plea and sentenced him. This argument, however, is waived. United States v. Hester, 589 F.3d 86, 94 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>) (citing Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, Options: A. holding court will generally not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal B. holding arguments not raised on appeal waived C. holding that bjecause the defendant has not presented these constitutional arguments to the district court in the first instance and because the appeal waiver narrowly circumscribes what he may appeal we deem these arguments waived D. holding that the district court possessed discretion to decline to review the 2254 petitioners arguments responding to the states assertion that his petition was untimely because the 2254 petitioner raised these arguments for the first time in his objections to the magistrate judges report and recommendation and failed to assert these arguments in a reply to the states response despite the fact that he was ordered to raise these arguments in a reply E. holding that prisoner waived first amendment claim because he failed to brief arguments on appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that bjecause the defendant has not presented these constitutional arguments to the district court in the first instance and because the appeal waiver narrowly circumscribes what he may appeal we deem these arguments waived