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: forcible sexual abuse fits within the definition of an offense “that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). Our initial step in that determination is to ascertain the appropriate level of generality at which we assess “substantial risk.” Specifically, we must determine whether we consider, for purposes of assessing substantial risk under § 16(b), only the offense as defined by state law, or whether we can take into account the particular conduct alleged. A We conclude that the language of 18 U.S.C. § 16 and our precedents require that the crime of violence analysis be conducted at the level of the statutory definition. See United States v. Reyes-Castro, 13 F.3d 377, 379 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (citing United States v. Rodriguez, 979 F.2d Options: A. holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 16 B. holding that courts should look to the statutory definition of the crime charged rather than the actual facts of the individuals prior conviction to determine whether the crime qualifies as a violent felony under the acca C. holding that the categorical approach applies to the identical definition of crime of violence in 18 usc 16 D. holding that once the statute is found to be divisible the court must look to the charging papers and judgment of conviction to determine if the actual crime of which defendant was convicted was a crime of violence but emphasizing that the court is not to examine the particular facts underlying the conviction E. holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc 16

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 16
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: None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement may be amended, modified, supplemented, terminated or waived, and no consent to any departure by the Grantor therefrom shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by each Secured Party and the Grantor, and then such amendment, modification, supplement, waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which made or given.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: fall within the range of 216 to 240 months. The 240-month sentence is the statutory maximum for first-degree aggravated robbery, and the 216-month sentence is equivalent to a double departure of the 108-month presumptive sentence for the kidnapping. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 1 . This statute went into effect August 1, 1998, before Neal was sentenced, but after the date of his offense. The previous dangerous-offender statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.152, subd. 2, was repealed August 1, 1998. See Act effective August 1, 1998, ch. 367, art. 6, § 7, 1998 Minn. Laws 731, 735. The district court erred in using the 1998 dangerous-offender statute because it went into effect after the date of Neal's offense, July 14, 1998. See State v. Murray, 495 N.W.2d 412, 413 (Minn. 1993) (<HOLDING>). However, the criteria for sentencing a Options: A. holding minnesotas patterned sex offender senfence enhancement statute unconstitutional as applied to one defendant and noting our doubts as to whether the statute could ever be constitutionally applied B. holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction C. holding that some of the sex offender conditions imposed on defendant as part of his sentence for possessing a firearm were unreasonable where defendants sole sex offense was over a decade old at the time of sentencing D. holding that the defendant could not be sentenced under the patterned sex offender statute if his offense occurred before the statute became effective E. holding that while a defendant is not entitled to be sentenced as a youthful offender on any new offense he or she may have committed the trial court cannot revoke a defendants youthful offender status on offenses for which that defendant has already been sentenced citation omitted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the defendant could not be sentenced under the patterned sex offender statute if his offense occurred before the statute became effective
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: 50-16.9(b) (2009). Cohabitation is defined by statute as “the act of two adults dwelling together continuously and habitually in a private heterosexual relationship.” Id. “Cohabitation is evidenced by the voluntary mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties, and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, and which include, but are not necessarily dependent on, sexual relations.” Id. Therefore, to find cohabitation, there must be evidence of: (1) a “dwelling together continuously and habitually” of two adults and (2) a “voluntary mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties, and obligations which are usually manifested by married people.” Id.; see Lee’s Family Law § 9.85, at 494-95; cf. Craddock v. Craddock, 188 N.C. App. 806, 812, 656 S.E.2d 716, 720 (2008) (<HOLDING>); Oakley v. Oakley, 165 N.C. App. 859, 863, 599 Options: A. holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues B. holding that conflicting expert evidence regarding function establishes material issue of fact C. recognizing that summary judgment on any and all aspects of a partys claim including damages is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact D. holding that conflicting evidence related to various factors including frequency of overnight visits by alleged cohabiting man presented genuine issues of material fact E. holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that conflicting evidence related to various factors including frequency of overnight visits by alleged cohabiting man presented genuine issues of material fact
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 preserve this issue by raising it below, and Defendant counters that his claim is excepted from the preservation requirement insofar as we are required to review de novo whether a sentence constitutes cruel and unusual pu llenged the constitutionality of his sentence in the trial court, we conclude the issue is not preserved for our review. See Rule 12-216(A) NMRA 2001; Burdex, 100 N.M. at 201, 668 P.2d at 317. {32} Were we to reach the issue, we would affirm on the grounds that our opinion in Rueda, 1999-NMCA-033, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 738, 975 P.2d 351, is controlling and that Defendant has failed to point us to evidence of particular circumstances which would render imposition of the habitual offender enhancement cruel and unusual. Cf. Arrington, 115 N.M. at 561-62, 855 P.2d at 135-36 (<HOLDING>). {33} Nor are we persuaded by Defendant’s Options: A. recognizing right to privacy in receipt of health care services to the extent consistent with providing adequate medical care and the safety and good order of the facility B. holding that evidence of the defendants medical condition and inability of correctional facility to provide necessary care sufficient to support finding that incarceration would be cruel and unusual C. holding that a state is required to provide medical care to incarcerated individuals D. recognizing that a patients choice of a health care facility does not render the facility a beneficiary under 502a1b E. holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that evidence of the defendants medical condition and inability of correctional facility to provide necessary care sufficient to support finding that incarceration would be cruel and unusual
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement is declared or found to be illegal, unenforceable, or void, in whole or in part, then both parties shall be relieved of all obligations arising under such provision, but only to the extent such provision is illegal, unenforceable, or void, it being the intent and agreement of the parties that this Agreement shall be deemed amended by modifying such provision to the extent necessary to make it legal and enforceable while preserving its intent or, if such is not possible, by substituting therefor another provision that is legal and enforceable and achieves the same objectives. The foregoing notwithstanding, if the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected by such declaration or finding and is capable of substantial performance, then each provision not so affected shall be enforced to the extent permitted by law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001)). Finding no such statement of intent regarding FARRA’s § 2242(d), and no grounds for distinguishing the Court’s analysis in St. Cyr., we remanded Ogbudimkpa’s case to the district court for consideration of the merits of his habeas petition. Id. at 222. The same reasoning and result apply here. Thus we reverse the District Court’s decision and remand for it to consider the merits of Mondesir’s habeas corpus petition. 1 . Following the District Court’s denial of habeas relief, Mondesir was removed to Haiti. 2 . Mondesir's removal does not moot his petition for review of the District Court's denial of habeas relief because there are "collateral consequences” of the BIA’s order of removal. See Chong v. Quarantillo, 264 F.3d 378, 385 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 3 . We affirm, however, the District Court's Options: A. holding that an alien parent may not establish a derivative claim for asylum by pointing to potential hardship to the aliens united states citizen child in the event of the aliens deportation B. holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy C. holding that the crime of bringing aliens to the united states is complete when the initial transporter who brings the aliens to the united states ceases to transport them D. holding that the bias order of removal creates sufficient collateral consequences to render the aliens petition a live case or controversy by preventing the alien from entering the united states for ten years pursuant to 8 usc 1182a9aii E. holding that attorney generals authority to deport creates no private right of action for a criminal alien because attorney general must act in best interest of united states not the criminal alien

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the bias order of removal creates sufficient collateral consequences to render the aliens petition a live case or controversy by preventing the alien from entering the united states for ten years pursuant to 8 usc 1182a9aii
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Parent and its Subsidiaries have timely filed all Federal and other material Tax returns required to be filed, and have timely paid all Federal and other material Taxes, assessments, fees and other governmental charges, in each case, in the nature of a Tax (including satisfying its withholding Tax obligations) levied or imposed on their properties, income or assets or otherwise due and payable, except those which are being contested in good faith by appropriate actions diligently conducted and for which adequate reserves have been provided in accordance with GAAP. No Tax Lien has been filed, and, to the knowledge of the Parent no written claim is being asserted, with respect to any such Tax, assessment, fee or other governmental charge, in each case, in the nature of a Tax, which is not being contested in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Neither Parent nor any Subsidiary thereof is party to any tax sharing agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As between the Parties hereto, neither Party shall be liable to the other for the death of or injury to any employee of the other, or loss of or damage to the property of the other, unless caused solely by its own negligence or willful action. Each Party shall indemnify the other against any liability for any loss, damage, or injury suffered by any third party and arising out of its performance of this Agreement where such loss is caused solely by its own negligence or willful action, and the parties shall bear in proportion to its fault, as determined by final judgment or arbitration award, liability for such loss, damage or injury where caused by their joint negligence or willful actions; provided, however, neither Party shall be liable for punitive damages to the other Party, except to the extent awarded to a third party. The Parties acknowledge that they are Parties to various leases, subleases and other agreements, and that this provision shall not supersede or modify any of such separate agreements.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument and any of the parties hereto may execute this Agreement by signing any such counterpart. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Agreement by facsimile transmission or by other electronic transmission shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.

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: his termination because the attorney retained by the FEA to represent him in the administrative proceedings failed to file exceptions. See Wojcicki v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade County, 841 So.2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (citing Kantor v. Sch. Bd. of Monroe County, 648 So.2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), which observed that a terminated school employee could not argue on appeal matters which were not properly excepted to or challenged before school board). Both the attorney and the FEA sought dismissal of Wojcicki’s complaint. The attorney successfully argued the general rule that union agents may not be held individually hable when they act on behalf of a union in a collective bargaining activity and was dismissed from the case. See Stafford v. Meek, 762 So.2d 925, 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). However, the circuit court rejected the FEA’s Options: A. holding that there was abundant evidence to support the charge against a union member for helping organize a nonaflcio local union of a different name where the union member admitted at the hearing that he contacted local contractors for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement for new union and serving as the new unions business manager B. holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union C. holding that collective bargaining agent representing employees had representational standing and therefore could bring an action under section 502 of erisa D. holding that a union attorney representing a member in a collective bargaining activity enjoys immunity from a legal malpractice action filed by an individual grievant E. recognizing that by accepting bribes in exchange for allowing violations of a collective bargaining agreement the defendant was conducting the rico enterprise local union through racketeering activity even though the union was harmed by the racketeering activity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a union attorney representing a member in a collective bargaining activity enjoys immunity from a legal malpractice action filed by an individual grievant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) The Commitments shall automatically terminate upon the earliest to occur of (i) the Funding Date, (ii) 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on the tenth Business Day after the Wayne Acquisition Closing Date or (iii) December 31, 2016.

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: We and our representatives will keep the Evaluation Materials completely confidential; provided, however, that (i) any of such information may be disclosed to those of our directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives (including attorneys, accountants and financial advisors), lenders and other sources of financing (collectively, "our representatives") who we reasonably determine need to know such information for the purpose of evaluating a Possible Transaction between us and the Company (it being understood that our representatives shall be informed by us of the confidential nature of such information and shall be directed by us, and shall each agree to treat such information confidentially) and

assistant: Yes
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 Agreement and the Notes, and the stock issuable upon conversion of the Notes, have been duly authorized by the Board of Directors and stockholders of the Company. The Company has obtained the necessary corporate approval for the authorization of any shares of Equity Securities (as defined in the Notes), and the Company has sufficient number of shares of Equity Securities authorized under the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to provide for the issuance of such shares upon conversion of the Notes. The Agreement and the Notes, when executed and delivered by the Company, shall constitute valid and legally binding obligations of the Company, enforceable against the Company in accordance with their respective terms except as limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, fraudulent conveyance, or other laws of general application relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally, and as limited by laws relating to the availability of specific performance, injunctive relief, or other equitable remedies.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Petrocom and Coastel are existing licensees in the GMSA whose CGSAs were defined, prior to the instant regulations, to encompass the western half of the Gulf of Mexico and the entire Gulf of Mexico, respectively. The boundary between the GMSA and land-based MSAs and RSAs is demarcated by the coastline. See Petroleum Communications, Inc., 1 FCC Red 511, 513 (1986) (Order on Reconsideration). Petitioners provide cellular telephone service primarily to oil industry employees working on drilling rigs and to boating traffic in the Gulf. Because FCC regulations do not permit licensees in the GMSA to build towers on land, petitioners must place transmission towers on the waterborne platforms of oil and gas companies. See Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6 FCC Red 6158, 6159 (1991) (<HOLDING>). When oil companies move these platforms, Options: A. holding that in action by property owner to recover land taken by eminent domain current titleholder to land might be necessary party if district court were to restore land to plaintiff B. recognizing inability of gulf carriers to locate antenna towers on land to serve gulf areas C. recognizing general proposition that if land is artificially submerged for the statutory period necessary to change ownership of the land title to the submerged land is passed to the state in trust for the public D. holding that land sales contracts were not securities because they involved no investment in an enterprise even if land was bought on expectation that development of the area would increase the value of the land E. holding that collateral consequences such as the loss of the license to practice medicine sex offender registration inability to vote or inability to serve on a jury do not constitute constructive custody

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing inability of gulf carriers to locate antenna towers on land to serve gulf areas
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 480 U.S. 615 107 S.Ct. 1596 94 L.Ed.2d 614 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.William D. MERCHANT No. 85-1672 Supreme Court of the United States March 24, 1987 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [March 24, 1987] PER CURIAM. 1 The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

assistant: 9
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Plan shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Bank and its successors and assigns. The term “successors” as used herein shall include any corporate or other business entity which shall, whether by merger, consolidation, purchase or otherwise acquire all or substantially all of the business and assets of the Bank, and successors of any such corporation or other business entity.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Party acknowledges and agrees that any controversy that may arise under this Agreement, including any appendices attached to this Agreement, is likely to involve complicated and difficult issues and, therefore, each such Party irrevocably and unconditionally waives any right it may have to a trial by jury in respect of any legal action arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including any appendices attached to this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon Executive’s death while Executive is an employee or consultant of the Company, then (i) employment hereunder shall automatically terminate, (ii) all of Executive’s Company stock options and restricted stock shall immediately accelerate vesting as to 50% of the then unvested shares, and all subsequent vesting of Executive’s stock options and restricted stock shall terminate immediately, and (iii) all payments of compensation by the Company to Executive hereunder shall immediately terminate (except as to amounts already earned).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Sell, lease, transfer or otherwise dispose of, or permit any of its Subsidiaries to sell, lease, transfer or otherwise dispose of, all or substantially all of the assets of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the representations and warranties of the Company in this Agreement and the other transaction documents shall be true and correct in all material respects as of such Closing, except for representations and warranties that speak as of a particular date, which shall be true and correct in all material respects as of such date.

assistant: Warranties
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 shall be liable for and shall pay all federal, state and local income or other similar taxes, and all related interest, penalties or other liabilities and costs, that may be due in connection with the payments to be made to Employee hereunder. The Employer shall have the right to withhold from any such payments all amounts necessary to satisfy its withholding obligations with respect thereto. Employee acknowledges that the Employer has not made representations or warranties of any kind regarding the tax consequence, if any, of any payments made hereunder.

assistant: Taxes
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: time, is all the more meritless. Plaintiff has misconstrued the effect of the Township’s continuing to pay her salary and other benefits during the time that the assessor position was vacant. This fact did not make the Township her employer. See, e.g., Orenic v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 127 Ill. 2d 453, 476, 537 N.E.2d 784, 795 (1989) (fact that a county pays salaries of nonjudicial employees in the judicial branch does not in constitutional or statutory terms make the county their employer); Drury v. County of McLean, 89 Ill. 2d 417, 425, 433 N.E.2d 666 (1982) (fact that counties pay salaries and expenses of circuit court clerks does not make the office of circuit court clerk a county office); Levin v. Civil Service Comm’n, 52 Ill. 2d 516, 521, 288 N.E.2d 97, 100 (1972) (<HOLDING>). In accordance with the applicable statutory Options: A. holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county B. holding that notwithstanding language of statute authorizing appointment of a county architect by the board of commissioners of cook county such appointee is not an officer where he has no stated salary but is employed on a commission basis and where his work is generally casual and not continuous even though he is frequently referred to in the records of the county board as an officer C. holding that plaintiffs had a particularized need for cook county jail prebudget documents after observing that the plaintiffs theory is that the county allegedly approved the dental services budget despite knowing that it might create unconstitutional conditions at the jail accordingly the countys deliberative process is directly at issue in this case D. holding that public employees working for the office of cook county assessor and receiving their compensation from cook county had no vested right in the expectation of the continuance of this compensation E. holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that public employees working for the office of cook county assessor and receiving their compensation from cook county had no vested right in the expectation of the continuance of this compensation
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: (B)(i). Regulations of the Health Care Financing Administration (“HCFA”) (now Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)' provide that a payment'is made “promptly” if made within 120 days after the earlier of the date the care was provided or the date a claim was filed with the insurer. 42 C.F.R. §§ 411.21, 411.50 (2000). Because, in the present case, Kaiser could not reasonably have been expected to make any payment to Brown within 120 days of the medical services 2 (noting, in dicta, “that the plain language of the MSP statute makes the reasonable expectation of a prompt payment a requirement for” reimbursement, but that this plain language arguably produced an “absurd result”), and In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prod. Liab. Litig., 202 F.R.D. 154, 167-69 (E.D.Pa.2001) (<HOLDING>); see also Estate of Urso v. Thompson, 309 Options: A. holding one example of a claim is a right to an equitable remedy that can be satisfied by an alternative right to payment B. holding that msp by its terms limits the governments right to reimbursement to situations in which prompt payment has been made or can reasonably be expected by a primary plan C. holding that the constitutional right to a speedy trial includes the right to a reasonably prompt sentencing D. holding that the lien at issue was not extinguished by silence in the plan as to its survival unless it is dealt with by the plan by a provision for the payment of or securing of the claim E. holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that msp by its terms limits the governments right to reimbursement to situations in which prompt payment has been made or can reasonably be expected by a primary plan
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 post , send or otherwise make available user-generated content via your nintendo account you grant ncl a non-exclusive , worldwide , royalty-free , perpetual and fully transferable right to reproduce , publish and make available user-generated content via the nintendo account service as envisaged by the application that you use to post , send or otherwise make available such user-generated content .

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: at 10 (citing Sanders v. City of Union Springs, 207 Fed.Appx. 960, 966 (11th Cir.2006); Byrd v. Clark, 783 F.2d 1002, 1007 (11th Cir.1986)). Plaintiffs have not, however, demonstrated that the law was “clearly established” that a law enforcement officer can be held liable under § 1983 for failing to prevent another officer’s unlawful search. “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficie e a duty to intervene in unlawful searches when they are in a position to do so, it cannot be said that the Canine Handlers and Alma Officers violated clearly established law by failing to intervene in these particular circumstance. See, e.g., Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1286 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The facts alleged in this case are distinct Options: A. holding that a police officer was not liable for use of excessive force since 951 requirements were satisfied B. holding that an officer could be held liable for failing to intervene in preventing an unlawful strip search C. holding that while case law generally indicates that an officer can be held liable for failing to intervene in another officers use of excessive force the absence of authority from the supreme court or the eleventh circuit dealing with similar circumstances supported granting qualified immunity to a defendant D. holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim E. holding that a military police officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force suit when he objectively reasonably believed that he used reasonable force

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that while case law generally indicates that an officer can be held liable for failing to intervene in another officers use of excessive force the absence of authority from the supreme court or the eleventh circuit dealing with similar circumstances supported granting qualified immunity to a defendant
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: what additional factors are sufficient to create the requisite inference of participatory involvement. In Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 90-91, 100 S.Ct. at 341-42, officers had a warrant to search a bar and its bartender for heroin. They conducted a pat-down search of Ybarra, a bar patron, despite the fact he had made no gestures suggesting criminal conduct, no attempts to conceal contraband, and no suspicious statements. In declaring the search invalid, the Court noted that the officers “knew nothing more about Ybarra except that he was present, along with several other customers, in a public tavern at a time when the police had reason to believe that the bartender would have heroin for sale.” Id. at 91, 100 S.Ct. at 342. See also Swint v. City of Wadley, Alabama, 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. Options: A. holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search B. holding that the legitimate search and seizure of one suspect in a public place cannot be bootstrapped into probable cause for a broadbase search of the business establishment and its patrons C. holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause D. holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same E. holding that probable cause alone justifies a warrantless search or seizure of a vehicle lawfully parked in a public place

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the legitimate search and seizure of one suspect in a public place cannot be bootstrapped into probable cause for a broadbase search of the business establishment and its patrons
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement will be governed under the internal laws of the state of Illinois without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Executive agrees that the state and federal courts located in the state of Illinois shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any action, lawsuit or proceeding based on or arising out of this Agreement, and Executive hereby: (a) submits to the personal jurisdiction of such courts; (b) consents to the service of process in connection with any action, suit, or proceeding against Executive; (c) waives any other requirement (whether imposed by statute, rule of court, or otherwise) with respect to personal jurisdiction, venue or service of process; and (d) agrees not to file any action, suit, or proceeding against the Company based on or arising out of this Agreement in any forum except the state or federal courts located in the state of Illinois.

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: Donlon, once again, fails to demonstrate the first and third elements. The applicability of the WBL to MCPS, and MCPS’s assertion of sovereign immunity and are both quintessential issues of law, not of fact. It doesn’t matter whether a party takes an inconsistent position compared to one taken in previous litigation. Legal arguments are not judicially es-topped. See Thomas, 217 Md.App. at 341 n.5, 92 A.3d 614 (determining that judicial estoppel was inappropriate where appellant asserted inconsistent positions as to his legal status as interpreted in light of an Operating Agreement adopted by the parties). Although, as we have already established, an agency may have simultaneously both State and local characteristics. See Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, 413 Md. at 632, 994 A.2d 411 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Nothing in the record Options: A. holding a state agency as an arm of the state cannot constitute a person under 1983 because it is a sovereign entity B. holding kansas public employees retirement system is not as a state agency considered a person for purposes of 1983 liability C. holding that the state police is a state agency D. holding california school district a state agency for purposes of the eleventh amendment E. holding that an entity may qualify as a state agency for some purposes while being classified as a local agency for other purposes

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an entity may qualify as a state agency for some purposes while being classified as a local agency for other purposes
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 the event of termination of the employment of the Holder for any reason other than those specified in Sections 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 or 9, the LTI will terminate as follows: (i) the Holder’s unvested EIX Options will terminate for no value as of the date such employment terminates, (ii) the Holder’s vested EIX Options will terminate for no value 180 days from the date on which such employment terminated (or, if earlier, on the last day of the applicable EIX Option term) to the extent not theretofore exercised, (iii) the Holder’s unearned Performance Shares will terminate for no value as of the date such employment terminates, and (iv) the Holder’s unvested Restricted Stock Units will terminate for no value as of the date such employment terminates. Any fractional vested EIX Options will be rounded up to the next whole share.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: assertion of jurisdiction over all co-conspirators, residents and nonresidents, based upon their involvement in a conspiracy which occurred within the forum. Under the conspiracy theory, the plaintiff must: (1) make a prima facie factual showing of a conspiracy (i.e., point to evidence showing the existence of the conspiracy and the defendant’s knowing participation in that conspiracy); (2) allege specific facts warranting the inference that the defendant was a member of the conspiracy; and (3) show that the defendant’s co-conspirator committed a tor-tious act pursuant to the conspiracy in the forum. Kohler Co. v. Kohler International, Ltd., 196 F.Supp.2d 690 (N.D.III.2002). See also American Land Program, Inc. v. Bo-naventura Uitgevers Maatschappij, N.V., 710 F.2d 1449 (10th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Plaintiff alleges as a “fourth Options: A. recognizing requirement that defendant conspired to commit an overt act in state in furtherance of the conspiracy B. holding that a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an illegal act into which the defendant knowingly and voluntary enters and which is manifested by an overt act C. holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy D. holding that telephone conversations and meetings were overt acts in furtherance of a drug conspiracy E. holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing requirement that defendant conspired to commit an overt act in state in furtherance of the conspiracy
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 required or permitted under this Award Agreement shall be deemed given when delivered personally, or when deposited in a United States Post Office, postage prepaid, addressed, as appropriate, to the Company at its principal offices, to the Participant at the Participant’s address as last known by the Company or, in either case, such other address as one party may designate in writing to the other.

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: under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2). Lopez, 549 U.S. at 55 n. 6, 127 S.Ct. 625 (stating that Congress “counterintuitively” defined recidivist possession as a drug trafficking offense); 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). The district court concluded Santana-Illan’s 2003 Georgia conviction for simple possession of cocaine could have been prosecuted as recidivist possession under the CSA and, thus, it is a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) and an aggravated felony for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Santana-Illan challenges this approach, arguing his 2003 simple possession conviction was not actually prosecuted as recidivist possession and, thus, it cannot be an aggravated felony. The circuit courts of appeals are split on this issue. Compare Alsol v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 207, 219 (2d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>), and Rashid v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 438, 442-48 Options: A. holding that defendants prior felony convictions in georgia state court for drugrelated conspiracy and simple possession qualified as predicate prior felony drug offenses for 841b1a because under the plain language of the statute felony drug offense includes any criminal conduct relating to narcotics including simple possession which a state has proscribed as a felony B. holding that possession with intent to distribute and simple possession are the same offense under blockburger C. holding that a second state court conviction for simple possession of narcotics is an aggravated felony as defined in 8 usc 1101a43 D. holding that trial court may arrest judgment on conviction for possession with intent to deliver and enter judgment of guilt on simple possession E. holding second simple possession conviction was not an aggravated felony because it was not prosecuted as recidivist possession

assistant: The best answer is E. holding second simple possession conviction was not an aggravated felony because it was not prosecuted as recidivist possession
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 whether he employee’s underlying conduct was criminal. Although the FBI suitability standards referred to by respondent do not include explicit guidance on whether an agent must behave honestly in all aspects of an agent’s life in order to remain employed, the FBI Employee Handbook states that high standards of conduct must be maintained “not only when they are engaged in their official duties but while off duty.” See also Ludlum v. Dep’t of Justice, 87 M.S.P.R. 56, ¶ 29 (2000), aff'd, 278 F.3d 1280 (Fed.Cir.2002) (the FBI has a right to hold its special agents to a high standard of conduct). It was this theory that the Board adopted in its December 4, 2007 decision when it sustained the FBI’s removal action. See Doe v. Dep’t of Justice, CH-0752-04-0620-B-1, 107 M.S.P.R. 397 (<HOLDING>). We think that the Board’s decision cannot be Options: A. holding that clearly dishonest conduct is sufficient to trigger investigation and ultimately justify a decision to remove a special agent B. holding that a mere allegation that the petitioner would have insisted on trial but for his counsels errors is ultimately insufficient to justify relief C. holding that employer was entitled to summary judgment even if it conducted a shoddy investigation and subsequently made a poorly informed decision to fire plaintiff so long as there was no evidence that it was discriminatory animus that motivated the decision to conduct the investigation and terminate plaintiffs employment D. holding that allegations of inaccurate information are sufficient to trigger advisement requirement E. holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that clearly dishonest conduct is sufficient to trigger investigation and ultimately justify a decision to remove a special agent