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: For each Plan Year, the Base Salary portion of the Annual Deferral Amount shall be withheld from each regularly scheduled Base Salary payroll in equal amounts, as adjusted from time to time for increases and decreases in Base Salary. The Bonus, LTIP Amounts, RSUs, (and any other designated compensation) portion of the Annual Deferral Amount shall be withheld at the time the Bonus, Commissions, LTIP Amounts, RSUs, and other compensation are or otherwise would be paid to the Participant, whether or not this occurs during the Plan Year itself. Annual Deferral Amounts shall be credited to the Participant’s Annual Account for such Plan Year at the time such amounts would otherwise have been paid to the Participant.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and (3) that the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the exercise of the ust demonstrate not only that a correctional officer took an adverse action, but that the action “would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing in the [protected] activity.” 382 F.3d at 876. “The ordinary-firmness test is well established in the case law, and is designed to weed out trivial matters from those deserving the time of the courts as real and substantial violations of the First Amendment.” Garcia v. City of Trenton, 348 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir.2003). We have adopted the “ordinary-firmness” requirement for First Amendment claims of retaliation, see id., and have applied it in the First Amendment prisoner retaliation context, see Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1029 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The “ordinary-firmness” test is an “objective Options: A. holding that harassment physical threats and transfer to the area of the prison used to house mentally disturbed inmates especially combined with the conditions allegedly present there would likely deter a prisoner of ordinary firmness from exercising a right to access the courts B. holding that prisoner justifiably failed to file ordinary grievance when prisoner reasonably believed that department of corrections regulations foreclosed such recourse C. holding that the record contained insufficient evidence that increasing the prisoners work load would chill a prisoner of ordinary firmness from using the prison grievance process D. holding that due process requires that the findings and actions of a disciplinary prison board be supported by some evidence in the record E. holding that the plra mandates that prisoners exhaust internal prison grievance procedures before filing suit emphasis added

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the record contained insufficient evidence that increasing the prisoners work load would chill a prisoner of ordinary firmness from using the prison grievance process
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: we reserve the right to modify or terminate the service or your access to the service for any reason , without notice , at any time , and without liability to you .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in duplicate originals, each of which is equally admissible in evidence, and each original shall fully bind each party who executed it. An e-mailed or facsimile copy of the signature may be submitted as proof of execution; however, Employee shall send the original executed agreement by U.S. Mail to the Company's Chief Executive Officer no later than three (3) days after signature.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware applicable to agreements made and fully to be performed therein by residents thereof, without giving effect to any choice or conflict or law provision or rule that would cause the laws of any other jurisdiction to apply.

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: Cir.2001)). Therefore, any potential contacts by DSM Dyneema, B.V. with South Carolina or Virginia are irrelevant to this Court’s analysis of whether a federal court in North Carolina has personal jurisdiction over these claims. As to the availability of goods in North Carolina, the Supreme Court noted in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro that “[t]he defendant’s transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum; as a general rule, it is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum State.” Nicastro, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 2788, 180 L.Ed.2d 765 (2011); see also Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2852, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Absent any indication that DSM Dyneema B.V. Options: A. holding that because north carolina has opted out of the exemptions provided under 11 usc 522d the exemptions available for bankruptcy debtors in north carolina depend upon the law of north carolina B. holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce C. holding that a debtor is required to claim any exemptions under north carolina law because north carolina is an opt out state under 11 usc 522b D. holding that north carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over illinois bank even though some of its customers resided in north carolina and loan proceeds were used in north carolina E. holding that north carolina has jurisdiction over a claim arising from an accident in mississippi because the original offer of employment was accepted over the telephone while the employee was in north carolina

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce
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 term or other provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced by any rule or law, or public policy, all other conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the economic or legal substance of this Agreement is not affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon such determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced, the parties hereby shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law in a mutually acceptable manner in order that the terms of this Agreement remain as originally contemplated.

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: (a) The Subsidiaries listed on Schedule 3.15 constitute all the Subsidiaries of the Borrower as of the Restatement Effective Date. Schedule 3.15 sets forth as of the Restatement Effective Date the name and jurisdiction of incorporation of each Subsidiary and, as to each such Subsidiary, the percentage of each class of Capital Stock owned by any Loan Party.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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 irreparable injury to the other Party hereto would occur in the event any of the provisions of this Agreement were not performed in accordance with their specific terms or were otherwise breached and that such injury would not be adequately compensable by the remedies available at law (including the payment of money damages). It is accordingly agreed that each Party (the “ Moving Party ”), shall each be entitled to specific enforcement of, and injunctive relief to prevent any violation of, the terms hereof, and the other Party hereto will not take action, directly or indirectly, in opposition to the Moving Party seeking such relief on the grounds that any other remedy or relief is available at law or in equity. Each Party further agrees that no other Party hereto or any other Person shall be required to obtain, furnish or post any bond or similar instrument in connection with or as a condition to obtaining any remedy referred to in this Section 10. This Section 10 is not the exclusive remedy for any violation of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63, 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995). In the context of this appeal, that means that we will affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s MJOA unless a rational trier of fact viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state could not have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the murders were part of a course of “continuous and uninterrupted conduct that established] at least one offense and [was] so joined in time, place and circumstances that such conduct [was] directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.” ORS 131.505(4); see also State v. Yashin, 199 Or App 511, 514, 112 P3d 331, rev den, 339 Or 407 (2005) (<HOLDING>). With that in mind, we turn to the facts. Options: A. holding that the challenged conduct or statement must be directed at the familial relationship with knowledge that the statements or conduct will adversely affect that relationship internal quotation marks omitted B. holding in a related context that the legal determination that convictions arose out of separate criminal episodes is based on a factual finding specifically the finding that the acts giving rise to the convictions were not part of continuous and uninterrupted conduct that is so joined in time place and circumstances that such conduct is directed to the accomplishment of a criminal objective internal quotation marks omitted omission in original C. holding that the reviewing court must accept the adverse credibility finding so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the petitioners claim of persecution internal quotation marks omitted first alteration in original D. recognizing that conflict preemption precludes laws that under the circumstances of a particular case stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of congress omission alteration internal quotation marks and citation omitted E. holding that qualified immunity turns upon the objective legal reasonableness of the officers action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken internal quotation marks and citation omitted

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in a related context that the legal determination that convictions arose out of separate criminal episodes is based on a factual finding specifically the finding that the acts giving rise to the convictions were not part of continuous and uninterrupted conduct that is so joined in time place and circumstances that such conduct is directed to the accomplishment of a criminal objective internal quotation marks omitted omission in original
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: please review any respective insurance policy carefully , and in particular make sure that you are familiar with and understand any exclusions to , and any deductibles that may apply for , such insurance policy , including , but not limited to , whether or not your insurance policy will cover the actions or inactions of guests ( and the individuals the guest has booked for , if applicable ) while staying at your accommodation or participating in your experience , event or other host service .

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: exceeds the amount of the payments provided under the [MCO] contract.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(bb)(5)(A). Similarly, in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), the explanations of how the state should calculate the amount it must pay an FQHC for its services are uniformly preceded by the declaration that the state plan “shall provide for payment” for such services in that amount. Id. § 1396a(bb)(2)-(4). These explanations are “highly specific,” Belaval I, 397 F.3d at 75, and are written in “individualistic terms, rather than at the aggregate level of institutional policy or practice,” id. at 74. Notably, other circuits have held that the calculation methodology provisions of § 1396a(bb) are enforceable under § 1983. See Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Sanford, 509 F.3d 204, 209-12 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Cmty. Health Ctr. v. Wilson-Coker, 311 F.3d Options: A. recognizing such a claim under 1983 B. holding state is not a proper defendant under 1983 C. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 D. holding that patient could sue state agency under 1983 for breaching its obligation under the balance billing provision of the medicaid statute E. holding that a healthcare provider in a nonmanaged care system may sue under 1983 to enforce its claim that the formula used by the state agency to calculate its reimbursements was improper under 1396abb

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a healthcare provider in a nonmanaged care system may sue under 1983 to enforce its claim that the formula used by the state agency to calculate its reimbursements was improper under 1396abb
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: obligations. Specifically, we stated that inmates received “virtually all the benefit of their § 1983 money judgment when the proceeds were applied to satisfy their restitution debt.” Id. at 661. We find appellees’ attempts to distinguish Beeks to be unpersuasive. Regardless of factual and procedural differences between the cases, the general principle that an inmate whose money is taken and applied toward his court-ordered restitution debt does not suffer from a total deprivation of that money is applicable to both cases. When an inmate leaves prison, he leaves with his restitution debts. Any payment of those debts while the inmate is incarcerated will work to his ultimate benefit. Other courts have followed a similar logic. Cf. Campbell v. Miller, 787 F.2d 217, 222 (7th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1019, 107 S.Ct. 673, Options: A. holding that defendants collection of money from plaintiffs account to satisfy restitution order demonstrated only a concerted effort to apply plaintiffs funds to the payment of the criminal judgment entered against him not a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights B. holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court C. holding constitutional prison officials decision to impound a prisoners account pending his compliance with a restitution order and characterizing the prisoners complaint as a restriction on his freedom to use his funds in a particular way rather than a total deprivation of the money D. holding that prisoners notice of appeal deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court E. holding that prisoners petition challenging additional two years on prisoners original sentence as a result of the decision of the prison disciplinary board is not subject to section 2244d1

assistant: The best answer is C. holding constitutional prison officials decision to impound a prisoners account pending his compliance with a restitution order and characterizing the prisoners complaint as a restriction on his freedom to use his funds in a particular way rather than a total deprivation of the money
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and Plaintiff does not allege that those two inmates wanted to harm Plaintiff specifically. Finally, Plaintiff does not allege that either dangerous inmate was housed in Plaintiffs cell or that either dangerous. inmate threatened Plaintiff. Although Plaintiffs allegations show a “possibility” of injury, Plaintiffs allegations fail to show “extreme” conditions that create a “strong likelihood” of injury. As to the subjective component, Plaintiffs limited allegations establish, at most, that prison officials acted negligently. Plaintiffs allegations span more than three years, yet Plaintiff identifies only a few incidents of general population inmates (only two of which are described as dangerous) in protective management. See Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 403 (11th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to allege facts Options: A. holding that no deliberate indifference existed even though on at least one occasion while in protective custody the plaintiffprisoner was housed with another inmate who physically attacked him B. holding that the defendant may not state one ground at trial and another on appeal C. holding no liability existed under the circumstances D. holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station E. holding that no deliberate prosecutorial misconduct existed after the first trial ended in a hung jury

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that no deliberate indifference existed even though on at least one occasion while in protective custody the plaintiffprisoner was housed with another inmate who physically attacked him
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 either Party should waive any breach of any provisions of this Agreement, Executive or the Company shall not thereby be deemed to have waived any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: this case derived, in part, from his inability to engage in his normal activities due to the fear that the ICD would discharge unexpectedly. However, this “injury” is ostensibly shared, in varying degrees, by everyone who has an ICD implanted in his or her, even a properly functioning one. Consequently, even if Dr. Feldman had informed Melton of the potential defect in a timely manner and replaced the ICD with a properly functioning one, the possibility of an unexpected discharge would still loom, thereby leaving Melton in much the same state in which he now finds himself. Therefore, a jury could not have reasonably inferred a causal connection between Dr. Feldman’s failure to inform and Melton’s alleged injuries. See Green v. Lilliewood, 272 S.C. 186, 191, 249 S.E.2d 910, 912 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Melton failed to create a Options: A. holding that an agreement may be inferred entirely from circumstantial evidence B. holding when both expert testimony and circumstantial evidence of a physicians culpability are presented the inquiry is whether there was sufficient competent evidence from which the jury may have inferred a causal connection C. holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence D. holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence E. holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding when both expert testimony and circumstantial evidence of a physicians culpability are presented the inquiry is whether there was sufficient competent evidence from which the jury may have inferred a causal connection
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: exceptions applied, including that the reduction did not apply if the quantity of cocaine base was more than 4.5 kilograms. Id. The Supreme Court has held that a sentencing adjustment, pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), is not a resentencing proceeding. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-91, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (providing that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resen-tencing, but instead permits a modification by giving courts the power to reduce a sentence within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission). A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding has a limited scope and purpose, is “not constitutionally compelled,” and represents a “congressional act of lenity.” Id. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2691-92; see also United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781-82 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Rather, all original sentencing Options: A. holding that johnson did not support the defendants collateral challenge under 28 usc 2255 to his sentence enhanced under the residual clause of the ussg B. holding in a federal prisoners habeas case under 28 usc 2255 that the district court may raise the question of procedural default even if that defense was waived by the government C. holding in 28 usc 2255 proceeding that lafler does not establish new rule of constitutional law D. holding that constitutional claims are extraneous resentencing issues that a court cannot address during a 3582c2 proceeding and that a defendant is entitled to raise constitutional challenges to a sentence by making a collateral attack under 28 usc 2255 E. holding that proceedings under 3582c2 do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that constitutional claims are extraneous resentencing issues that a court cannot address during a 3582c2 proceeding and that a defendant is entitled to raise constitutional challenges to a sentence by making a collateral attack under 28 usc 2255
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, 445 U.S. 684, 691-92, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980); United States v. Johnson, 22 F.3d 106, 108 (6th Cir.1994). But when determining punishment for two distinct offenses, the court must recognize that there is a presumption that Congress intended to permit cumulative sentences. Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 793-94, 105 S.Ct. 2407, 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985)(emphasis added). The question of double jeopardy in punishment is frequently raised concerning civil and criminal penalties. Generally, the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against only multiple criminal punishments and does not include civil sanctions. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 98-99, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997); Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399, 58 S.Ct. 630, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938)(<HOLDING>); Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466, 474 (6th Options: A. holding congress may impose civil and criminal sanctions with respect to the same act or omission B. holding the same with respect to an apartment C. holding that the district court committed reversible error by imposing criminal sanctions in a civil proceeding which did not afford the contemnor the procedural protections the constitution requires for the imposition of criminal contempt sanctions D. holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment E. recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions on parties

assistant: The best answer is A. holding congress may impose civil and criminal sanctions with respect to the same act or omission
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) Keep all Property and systems useful and necessary in its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted ; provided, the Hillsboro Mining Event shall not constitute a default in the observance or performance of this Section 8.6(a) , (b) cause the Deer Run Mine to be constructed, operated and maintained in compliance in all material respects with the Construction Budget (as modified from time to time) and the terms and provisions of all Environmental or Mining Permits and in accordance with Prudent Operating Practice and ; provided, the Hillsboro Mining Event shall not constitute a default in the observance or performance of this Section 8.6(b), (c) maintain with financially sound and reputable insurance companies insurance on all its Property of the type and in at least such amounts and against at least such risks (but including in any event public liability, product liability and business interruption) as are usually insured against in the same general area by companies engaged in the same or a similar business, provided such insurance is available on commercially reasonable terms , which insurance shall name Administrative Agent as lender loss payee and additional insured thereunder (solely with respect to policies insuring Collateral, as defined in the Security Agreement) (and Borrower shall provide Administrative Agent with reasonable evidence of such insurance coverage from time to time and as requested by Administrative Agent) , (d) deliver to Administrative Agent annually copies of all policies maintained in accordance with the terms of this Section 8.6, including all certificates and endorsements respecting such policies, and (e) keep Administrative Agent apprised of the (x) filing of any claims under such policies applicable to the Administrative Agent, and (y) the status of any such claims ; provided that Borrower shall procure and maintain insurance in compliance with this clause (c) of this Section 8.6 for the preparation plant owned by Borrower at all times from and after the commencement of operation of such preparation plant.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: any dispute arising from or in connection with this agreement shall be submitted to the china international economic and trade arbitration commission ( cietac ) for arbitration in beijing which shall be conducted in accordance with cietac 's arbitration rules in effect at the time of applying for arbitration , provided that this section shall not be construed to limit any rights which airbnb may have to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for an order requiring you to perform or be prohibited from performing certain acts and other provisional relief permitted under china laws or any other laws that may apply to you .

assistant: Arbitration
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 Note shall be binding upon the Applicant, its successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of Holder, its successors and assigns. If any provision of this Note shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, then only such provision shall be deemed ineffective and the remainder of this Note shall not be affected. This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Connecticut (but not its conflicts of law provisions).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will not, and will not permit any of its Subsidiaries to, enter into any arrangement, directly or indirectly, whereby it shall sell or transfer any property, real or personal, used or useful in its business, whether now owned or hereinafter acquired, and thereafter rent or lease such property or other property that it intends to use for substantially the same purpose or purposes as the property sold or transferred, except for (i) any such sale of any fixed or capital assets that is made for cash consideration in an amount not less than the cost of such fixed or capital asset and is consummated within 90 days after the Borrower or such Subsidiary acquires or completes the construction of such fixed or capital asset; and (ii) other sale and leaseback transactions, provided that any Indebtedness that may be incurred with any such sale and leaseback transaction is permitted under Section 6.01 and the assets to be sold in connection with such sale and leaseback transaction are permitted to be sold pursuant to Section 6.05.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: However, even if we were looking at the prejudice issue from that perspective, Nappi could not demonstrate prejudice in any event. As we explain in the text, the information in the state PSI was largely cumulative, and there was a sufficient basis for the Court's sentence based on the factual information already found in the federal PSI. 13 . See also United States v. Moore, 958 F.2d 646, 651 (5th Cir.1992) (rejecting argument that court violated Rule 32 in considering confidential information in sentencing defendant without providing an opportunity to comment; court noted that defendant did not object below and that "[ejven in these proceedings, there is no claim made that the trial judge's information was inaccurate”); United States v. George, 911 F.2d 1028, 1029-30 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. DeBardeleben, 740 F.2d 440, Options: A. holding that joness application was insufficient because it did not indicate how communication with counsel would have affected trial or how he would have proceeded differently B. holding that district court complied with former rule 32a1 where court asked counsel during sentencing hearing whether circumstances warranted upward departure and counsel responded court rejected defendants argument that notice provided was insufficient and stated that defendant has not shown how he was prejudiced by this notice given how he could have been helped by additional notice or time C. holding that the defendant did not require advance notice where he could not show how he was prejudiced by late notice or how he could have been helped by additional notice D. holding that notice to counsel may be waived E. holding that notice of judgment was insufficient

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that district court complied with former rule 32a1 where court asked counsel during sentencing hearing whether circumstances warranted upward departure and counsel responded court rejected defendants argument that notice provided was insufficient and stated that defendant has not shown how he was prejudiced by this notice given how he could have been helped by additional notice or time
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 defendant’s involvement is comparable to that of an “average participant.” Buen-rostro, 868 F.2d at 138. Defendant allowed his property to be used as a stash house. He was present for the first delivery and was kept abreast of subsequent deliveries. One of the Government’s witnesses testified that the organization could not function without Defendant’s “shop.” Furthermore, Defendant was paid for each delivery. Most importantly, however, Defendant was not held responsible for the entire criminal history of the drug organization. Rather, his sentence was based on conduct in which he was directly involved, namely drug storage on his property. As such, his role was not minor, but actually coextensive with the conduct for which he was held accountable. See Marmolejo, 106 F.3d at 1217 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 Options: A. holding that the defendant was carrying a gun because he transported it within reach and immediately available for use B. holding that minor participant determination must be made relative to all participants in the criminal scheme for which the defendant is charged C. holding that the defendant was entitled to counsel when the offense for which he was tried could result in the imposition of a jail sentence D. holding that because only the drugs defendant actually transported were attributed to him in calculating his sentence he was not a minor participant in relation to the offense E. holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that because only the drugs defendant actually transported were attributed to him in calculating his sentence he was not a minor participant in relation to the offense
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: is no evidence that Deputy Sheriff Brown’s search damaged any part of the Dodge Magnum. At the outset of the consent search, Deputy Sheriff Brown noticed what appeared to be after-market alterations in the rear cargo area; specifically, drywall screws used to attach the rear side panels. He removed these screws, and found evidence that the vehicle was likely used to transport drugs in the past, though no illegal drugs were currently present. The officer then replaced the screws without damaging the vehicle, and proceeded to remove the glove box and front dashboard area. Dismantling the vehicle in this manner to expose its concealed compartments did not exceed the scope of the Vargas-Miranda’s consent the vehicle for illegal drugs. U.S. v. Ferrer-Montoya, 483 F.3d 565, 568 (8th Cir.2007)(<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Alcantar, 271 F.3d 731, 735 (8th Options: A. holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes B. holding officers act of removing screws from vehicle to open a concealed compartment commonly used for drug transport was minimally intrusive did no damage to the vehicle and did not exceed the defendants consent to search C. holding that where a qualified drug dog alerts to the presence of contraband in a vehicle officers have probable cause to search the vehicle D. holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle E. holding a stop was effected where officers vehicle blocked defendants vehicle from proceeding

assistant: The best answer is B. holding officers act of removing screws from vehicle to open a concealed compartment commonly used for drug transport was minimally intrusive did no damage to the vehicle and did not exceed the defendants consent to search
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: 5.13 linking you may link to the skype website from another website owned by you , provided you do so in a way that is fair and legal and does not damage our reputation or take advantage of it .

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: Each party’s obligations under this Section 5.9 shall survive any assignment by Lender of rights or obligations hereunder, termination of the Commitments, and any repayment, satisfaction, discharge or Full Payment of any Obligations.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: any claim or complaint against booking.com or in respect of the service must be promptly submitted , but in any event within 30 days after the scheduled day of consummation of the product or service ( e.g. check out date ) .

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: F.2d 525, 528 (11th Cir.1983)). Finally, Sheppard denies responsibility for one of her accidents, the May 16, 2001 accident for which she plead nolo contendere, and does not recall any facts surrounding the fleet safe complaint incident. However, the proper inquiry is not whether the employer’s reason for an adverse employment action is correct, but rather, whether the employer reasonably believed the employee committed the infraction which led to the adverse employment action. EEOC v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 221 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir.2000) (affirming summary judgment when employer had a “good faith belief’ that the plaintiff employee lied in an investigation which resulted in her termination, even when the employee denied lying); Chaney v. So. Ry. Co., 847 F.2d 718, 723 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Allocco v. City of Coral Gables, 221 Options: A. holding that because the employee had engaged in similar religious conduct on prior occasions employer had notice of the conflict B. holding that when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct the employee may pursue a civil action against his employer and also pursue benefits under the workers compensation act C. holding that whether an employee decides to assist the charging party or refuses to assist the employer the employer may not retaliate against the employee because this decision of the employee constitutes participation in an investigation or proceeding under title vii D. holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct E. holding plaintiffs burden was to show that the misconduct for which she was discharged was nearly identical to that engaged in by a male employee whom her employer retained internal quotation omitted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct
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 setting a limitation on the number of tests per year. Taste concedes that this claim is reviewed for plain error because he did not object below. To establish plain error, Taste must demonstrate that the district court erred, the error was plain, and the error affected his substantial rights. Henderson v. United States, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 1126, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013). If these requirements are met, the court will exercise its discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1126-27 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). We conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the special condition. See United States v. Carpenter, 702 F.3d 882, 884-885 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming error, any improper delegation Options: A. holding that when the district court imposed drug testing in connection with a special condition of substance abuse program participation it was not required to specify the number of drug tests a defendant must undergo as a part of the treatment program B. holding defendant was placed in classic penalty situation when he was required as condition of probation to participate in treatment program that required participants to disclose their offense history C. holding trial court could not make completion of courtordered treatment program requiring an admission of guilt a condition of probation D. holding that 18 usc 3583d requires that the court determine the number of drug tests to which the defendants must submit E. holding that the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which must be pronounced at sentencing

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that when the district court imposed drug testing in connection with a special condition of substance abuse program participation it was not required to specify the number of drug tests a defendant must undergo as a part of the treatment program
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: you should consult with your own lawyer and/or see 17 u.s.c. § 512 to confirm your obligations to provide a valid notice of claimed infringement .

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: (analogously recognizing and providing a “procedure when [an unadjudicated] stream system [is located] in two or more judicial districts,” which is that the judges of the different courts shall decide which will be the decree court). Such an approach is consistent with the language in NRS 533.450(l)’s forum clause (the “proper court of the county” where “the matters affected or a portion thereof are situated”), which speaks the language of venue, see NRS 13.010(2) (addressing venue in terms of “the county in which the subject of the action, or some part thereof, is situated”); NRS 13.050 (“[i]f the county designated ... be not the proper county,” venue may be changed), rather than that of subject matter jurisdiction. Landreth v. Malik, 127 Nev. 175, 180-81, 251 P.3d 163, 168-69 (2011) (<HOLDING>). It also comports with the position taken by Options: A. holding interactive website did not create general jurisdiction B. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts C. holding that the circuit courts have no appellate jurisdiction over a general district courts review of an administrative license suspension in the absence of any statutory authority vesting them with such jurisdiction D. holding that nev const art 6 61 vests general jurisdiction in all district court judges equally and rejecting the argument that the legislature can create family courts as district courts of limited not general jurisdiction E. holding appellate courts have jurisdiction over the district courts orders rejecting as a matter of law qualified immunity raised in a motion to dismiss

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that nev const art 6 61 vests general jurisdiction in all district court judges equally and rejecting the argument that the legislature can create family courts as district courts of limited not general jurisdiction