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: reasons, the Court has held that presumptively involuntary statements taken in violation of Miranda may be used by the prosecution for impeachment purposes on cross-examination. See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). These holdings do not extend to cases of actually coerced confessions. Before Fulminante, the distinction between actually and presumptively coerced confessions was relevant with regard to harmless error as well. In deciding, as the Su preme Court did in Fulminante, that the improper introduction at trial of an actually coerced confession is subject to harmless error analysis, the Court overturned a well established line of precedent which held to the contrary. See Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 65 S.Ct. 781, 89 L.Ed. 1029 (1945) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 376, 84 S.Ct. Options: A. holding introduction of actually coerced confession constitutes reversible error even where confession was cumulative in nature B. holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment C. holding that states procedure providing for jury evaluation of voluntariness of a defendants confession violates fourteenth amendment due process D. holding that introduction of an actually coerced confession deprives the defendant of his fourteenth amendment rights to due process even if ample evidence existed to otherwise support the conviction E. holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that introduction of an actually coerced confession deprives the defendant of his fourteenth amendment rights to due process even if ample evidence existed to otherwise support the conviction
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: which in turn caused his inability to recall the murder.” Id. at 728-729, 931 P.2d at 73-74. I respectfully disagree with this conclusion. Because I am not persuaded that the evidence offered at trial was sufficient to support a jury determination that Brown, by reason of intoxication, did not have the subjective or actual knowledge required by the statute, I cannot say the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on intoxication. Brown testified that he did not recall what happened because he had consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. The majority suggests this evidence is sufficient to support a jury determination that Brown lacked subjective or actual knowledge that his conduct was greatly dangerous. See generally State v. Privett, 104 N.M. 79, 80, 717 P.2d 55, 56 (1986) (<HOLDING>). I respectfully disagree. Perhaps I do not Options: A. holding that unlike the specificintent crime of firstdegree murder seconddegree murder is a generalintent crime for which the defense of voluntary intoxication is not available B. holding that under florida precedent trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on intoxication as voluntary intoxication was a valid defense to a specific intent crime and expert testimony is relevant to a disputed voluntary intoxication defense C. holding premeditated murder and felony murder are the same crime with various means of commission D. holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes E. holding intoxication to a degree that made specific intent impossible was a valid defense to a charge of willful premeditated firstdegree murder

assistant: The best answer is E. holding intoxication to a degree that made specific intent impossible was a valid defense to a charge of willful premeditated firstdegree murder
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: United States Supreme Court acknowledged in Valenzuela-Bemal, the demonstration of materiality can be established even where circumstances prevent a witness from being interviewed. 458 U.S. at 871, 102 S.Ct. 3440 (explaining that despite inability to "make any avowal of how witness may testify” in absence of interview, materiality may nonetheless be demonstrated by proffer of events to which witness might testify and relevance of such events to crime). 14 . At the same time, we recognize that even if Ms. Day had been called to the stand, she may have similarly ended up being held in contempt of court without having provided the testimony that Appellant sought to elicit from her. That, however, is not the concern at which the demonstration o ders, 206 W.Va. 544, 526 S.E.2d 320 (1999) (<HOLDING>). 16 .We note with appreciation that the State Options: A. recognizing danger of unfair prejudice resulting from fifth amendment invocation injurys presence is not so great when the defense rather than the government seeks to draw inferences from a witnesss silence B. holding that juveniles request for parent is invocation of fifth amendment rights C. holding that trial court may draw adverse inference from habeas petitioners silence as result of fifth amendment invocation during deposition D. holding adverse inference permissible in the face of defendants repeated invocation of fifth amendment privilege in discovery responses E. holding that substantive use of prearrest silence is contrary to fifth amendment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that trial court may draw adverse inference from habeas petitioners silence as result of fifth amendment invocation during deposition
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Borrower shall execute and deliver (or cause to be executed and delivered) to Agent and the Lenders such additional documents, instruments, certifications and opinions as the Agent may reasonably require in its reasonable discretion, including, without limitation, a Compliance Certificate, demonstrating compliance with all covenants, representations and warranties set forth in the Loan Documents after giving effect to the increase.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Consultant shall not be entitled to any benefits, coverage or privileges, including, without limitation, social security, unemployment, medical or pension payments, made available to employees of the Company, except as expressly provided in the Separation Agreement between Consultant and the Company dated March __, 2016 (the “Separation Agreement”).

assistant: Benefits
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) There are no actions, suits, proceedings or investigations by or before any arbitrator or Governmental Authority pending against or, to the knowledge of any Borrower, threatened against or affecting the Company or any of its Subsidiaries (i) as to which there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse determination and that, if adversely determined, could reasonably be expected, individually or in the aggregate, to result in a Material Adverse Effect or (ii) that involve this Agreement or any other Loan Document or any of the transactions contemplated hereby.

assistant: Litigations
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: it, inquired about whether he was on probation or had any warrants and if he could run a records check). For a police officer’s verbal inquiries to amount to a seizure, “something more than just asking a question, requesting information, or seeking an individual’s cooperation is required of an officer’s conduct.” State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392, 403, 313 P3d 1084 (2013). That “something more” can be “the content or manner of questioning, or the accompanying physical acts by the officer, if those added factors would reasonably be construed as a ‘threatening or coercive’ show of authority requiring compliance with the officer’s request.” Id. (quoting Ashbaugh, 349 Or at 317); see also, e.g., State v. Zaccone, 245 Or App 560, 563-67, 261 P3d 1287 (2011), rev den, 355 Or 381 (2014) (<HOLDING>). In light of the circumstances here, Haugen’s Options: A. holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation B. holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown C. holding that the defendant was not seized when two officers approached the defendant on a public street and asked him questions D. holding that a mistrial was not required after a police officer testified that he had once chased the defendant after the defendant had fired a gun where the testimony was a logical response to the prosecutors questions the statement was not made maliciously the evidence against the defendant was great and the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony E. holding that defendant was seized where the officer told defendant that she knew that he was on probation defendant admitted to the officer that he had given her a false name and defendant was asked for consent to search a backpack because a reasonable inference was that defendant was the subject of a continuing investigation and his or her freedom of movement had been significantly restricted by the officers show of authority

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that defendant was seized where the officer told defendant that she knew that he was on probation defendant admitted to the officer that he had given her a false name and defendant was asked for consent to search a backpack because a reasonable inference was that defendant was the subject of a continuing investigation and his or her freedom of movement had been significantly restricted by the officers show of authority
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties shall cooperate to create an initial press release upon the First Live Transaction Date, as well as subsequent public communications, and each party shall seek the other party’s consent prior to issuing any news release, public announcement, advertisement, or any other form of publicity, in any form or content, in connection with this Agreement and/or referring to the other party.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be terminated by any Purchaser, as to such Purchaser’s obligations hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and the other Purchasers, by written notice to the other parties, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before April 2, 2019; provided , however , that no such termination will affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: claims, we need not, and do not, address whether section 1823(e) also bars his claims or ting that every circuit court of appeals that has expressly addressed the asset limitation argument under the D’Oench doctrine has rejected it); Timberland Design, Inc. v. First Serv. Bank for Sav., 932 F.2d 46, 50 (1st Cir.1991) (“D’Oench protects the FDIC from [the plaintiffs] affirmative claims which are based upon an alleged oral agreement to lend money in the future.”); Bell & Murphy and Assocs. v. Interfirst Bank Gateway, N.A, 894 F.2d 750, 753 (5th Cir.1990) (rejecting argument that the D’Oench doctrine “bars only claims or defenses based upon unrecorded side agreements that defeat the FDIC’s interest in a specific asset acquired from a bank”); Hall v. FDIC, 920 F.2d 334, 339 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit specifically Options: A. holding that the federal common law doench doctrine protects the fslic and the fdic in both receiver and corporate capacities B. holding that while section 1825b2 does not extinguish an earlier lien or excuse the payment of a tax by the fdic it does deny the ability to use a lien on fdic property as a vehicle for collection of delinquent tax C. holding that claims that do not diminish or defeat the fdics interest in any specific asset are nevertheless doench barred in light of the established purpose of the doench doctrine to protect the fdics reliance on the banks records D. holding that a lien cannot be extinguished through a tax sale without the consent of the fdic E. holding that the doench doctrine protects the fdic even where the fdic does not have an interest in an asset

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the doench doctrine protects the fdic even where the fdic does not have an interest in an asset
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive agrees to refrain from any disparagement, defamation, libel, slander or making of any other negative statement regarding the Company, its prospects, products or services (together, the “Company Business”), its officers, employees, directors, shareholders, consultants, advisors, agents or representatives (the “Company People”), or its business reputation, or tortious interference with the contracts and relationships of the Company. Executive further agrees that he will not otherwise intentionally engage in conduct that is not in good faith and that is intended to disrupt, damage, impair or interfere with the Company Business, the Company People, and the Company’s reputation and relationships. To the extent that Executive becomes aware of any person or entity that, based in part on information or interaction with Executive, develops a disparaging impression of the Company Business or Company People, Executive will promptly so notify the Company and provide detail around the circumstances in which such situation arose. Jean Birch, Benjamin Hochberg, Yoo Jin Kim, John Shafer, L. David Mounts, Rob Weisberg, Jeffrey Welch, Mark Hutchens, Victoria Blackwell, Dan Harmon, Jayson Tipp and Brandon Solano each agrees to refrain from any disparagement, defamation, libel, slander or making of any other negative statement regarding Executive.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 994 P.2d 455, 458 (Colo.App.1999) (stating that an appellate court will not consider issues, arguments, or theories not presented below). 7 . For example, we have always allowed parties to supplement an argument with new cases or relevant legislative history that they did not raise in the district court. 8 . See also United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in Philadelphia, 144 F.2d 626, 630 (3d Cir.1944) (''The appropriate law must be applied in each case and upon a failure to do so appellate courts should remand the cause to the trial court to afford it opportunity to apply the appropriate law, even if the question was not raised in the court below."); Adkins v. Uncle Bart's, Inc., 2000 UT 14, ¶ 40, 1 P.3d 528 (same); Thurston v. Box Elder Cnty., 835 P.2d 165, 168 n. 3 (Utah 1992) (<HOLDING>). 9 . We do not intend to suggest that counsel Options: A. holding that despite the parties failure to address a controlling statute wle consider the statutes effect on this case sua sponte because it is controlling and it would be contrary to public policy to decline to do so B. recognizing every federal appellate court has a special obligation to consider its own jurisdiction even if it must do so sua sponte C. holding the new york state wiretap statute controlling on this issue D. holding that effect of suit rather than the purpose for which it was brought is controlling for purposes of the fifth factor E. holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that despite the parties failure to address a controlling statute wle consider the statutes effect on this case sua sponte because it is controlling and it would be contrary to public policy to decline to do so
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties to this Agreement agree that, upon (i) the execution and delivery by each of the parties hereto of this Agreement and (ii) satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 , the terms and provisions of the Existing Credit Agreement shall be and hereby are amended, superseded and restated in their entirety by the terms and provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to and shall not constitute a novation. All “Loans” made and “Obligations” incurred under and as defined in the Existing Credit Agreement which are outstanding on the Closing Date, if any, shall continue as Loans and Obligations under (and shall be governed by the terms of) this Agreement and the other Loan Documents. Without limiting the foregoing, upon the effectiveness hereof: (a) all references in the “Loan Documents” (as defined in the Existing Credit Agreement) to the “Administrative Agent”, the “Credit Agreement” and the “Loan Documents” shall be deemed to refer to the Administrative Agent, this Agreement and the Loan Documents, (b) all “Letters of Credit” issued (or deemed issued) under and as defined in the Existing Credit Agreement which remain outstanding on the Closing Date, if any, shall continue as Letters of Credit under (and shall be governed by the terms of) this Agreement, (c) notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Existing Credit Agreement, the Administrative Agent shall make such reallocations, sales, assignments or other relevant actions in respect of each Lender’s Pro Rata Share of the “Revolving Credit Obligations” under the Existing Credit Agreement and participations therein as are necessary in order that the Revolving Credit Obligations with respect to such Lender hereunder reflects such Lender’s Pro Rata Share of the Revolving Credit Obligations on the Closing Date and (d) to the extent any “Loans” are outstanding under the Existing Credit Agreement on the Closing Date, the Borrowers hereby agree to compensate each Lender, unless waived by such Lender in its sole discretion, for any and all losses, costs and expenses incurred by such Lender in connection with the reallocation, sale or assignment of any Eurocurrency Rate Loans (including the “Eurocurrency Rate Loans” under the Existing Credit Agreement), in each case on the terms and in the manner set forth in Section 4.4 hereof.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice or demand that, by any provision of this Agreement or any agreement, document or instrument executed pursuant hereto, except as otherwise provided therein, is required or provided to be given shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served and received for all purposes when delivered by hand, telecopy, or other method of facsimile or five (5) days after being sent by certified or registered mail, postage and charges prepaid, return receipt requested, or two (2) days after being sent by overnight delivery providing receipt of delivery, to the following addresses: if to the Company, at its main offices, or at any other address designated by the Company to me in writing; and if to me, at my mailing address as shown on the signature page hereof, or at any other address designated by me to the Company in writing.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE RELATED DOCUMENTS AND THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY AND THEREBY.

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: Other than in connection with the exercise by Borrower of its one-time transfer right under the provision of the lien instrument entitled " Prohibition on Transfer/One-Time Transfer ", Borrower shall have no right to assign or transfer the revocable license granted herein. Any such assignment or transfer shall constitute a default.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: therefore reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. To the extent Pollard’s appeal seeks to challenge the district court’s dismissal of GEO from the lawsuit, we affirm the district court’s disposition as to that issue. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED. 1 . Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), is an extraordinary precedent that gives a party harmed by constitutional error a remedy against federal officials in a way that parallels the § 1983 remedy against state actors. See Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254 n. 2, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006). 2 . See Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 401, 117 S.Ct. 2100, 138 L.Ed.2d 540 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 3 . And arguably a third. In Peoples v. CCA Options: A. holding that employees of a private prison management firm are not entitled to qualified immunity from suit by prisoners charging a violation of 42 usc 1983 B. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity C. holding that prison guards who are employees of a private prison management firm are not entitled to a qualified immunity from suit brought by prisoners under 1983 D. recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 usc 1983 for denial of access to the courts E. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that employees of a private prison management firm are not entitled to qualified immunity from suit by prisoners charging a violation of 42 usc 1983
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: entity must hold fee simple title in the property in order for this exception to apply. Even though strict construction of statutory provisions waiving sovereign immunity is required, it is also true that words in statutes are to be considered in their plain and ordinary meaning in order to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers. The statute refers to “a public entity’s property” and the definition of property suggests more than a fee simple ownership. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines, property as “something owned or possessed.” Under the facts of the present case, a definition of the term “public entity’s property” includes the exclusive control and possession of a polling place. Id. (citations omitted); see also Tillison v. Boyer, 939 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (<HOLDING>). ' Following Farrington, our courts have Options: A. holding where the commonwealth is not in possession of property in question petition for return of property is moot B. holding that ijnjuries caused by the condition of a public entitys property clearly refers to ownership of a property interest which allows a public entity to control the property C. holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver D. holding that property of a public entity includes having exclusive control and possession of property E. holding that a public entitys property refers to the public entity that owns the property where a dangerous condition exists

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that property of a public entity includes having exclusive control and possession of property
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: (plaintiff failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on right to privacy in medical condition); but see Poe, 282 F.3d at 189 (defendant police officer’s conduct in secretly videotaping unclothed female volunteer for a police training video “shocks the conscience” and was “unjustifiable by any governmental interest”). Furthermore, a prisoner’s interest in keeping a particular medical condition private varies with the condition. Powell v. Schriver, 175 F.3d 107, 111 (2d Cir.1999) (citing Doe v. City of New York, 15 F.3d 264, 267 (2d Cir.1994)). This is not a case in which plaintiff has an unusual medical problem which, if disclosed unnecessarily to other inmates, would likely expose plaintiff to discrimination, intolerance, or potential violence. See id., 175 F.3d at 111-13 (<HOLDING>); see also Webb, 117 F.Supp.2d at 298 Options: A. holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells B. holding prisoners had no clearly established right to privacy in medical records in 1995 C. recognizing a constitutional right of privacy in mental health records D. holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells E. recognizing prisoners right to privacy in transsexuality and hivseropositive status

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing prisoners right to privacy in transsexuality and hivseropositive status
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The district court instructed the jury on the specific intent required for a conviction for filing false tax returns by stating: The word “willfully,” as used in this statute, means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. In other words, the defendant must have acted voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something he knew the law prohibited, that is to say, with intent either to disobey or to disregard the law. Negligent conduct is not sufficient to constitute willfulness. The jury’s conclusion that Tarwater acted willfully would necessarily negate any possibility of “good faith” in filing false tax returns. Id. (internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 13, 97 S.Ct. 22, 50 L.Ed.2d 12 (1976) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Carter’s claim fails because the jury’s Options: A. holding good faith jury instruction unnecessary when court gave adequate specific intent instruction B. holding that a jury instruction compromised the appellants goodfaith argument because it did not make clear that a goodfaith belief by the appellants that they were complying with the tax laws whether or not objectively reasonable negates the specific intent element C. holding in a tax fraud case that a goodfaith instruction was unnecessary because the trial judge adequately instructed the jury on willfulness D. holding that various aspects of the trial adequately directed the jurys attention to the identification evidence and made defendants requested instruction unnecessary E. holding new trial should not have been granted because jury was properly instructed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding in a tax fraud case that a goodfaith instruction was unnecessary because the trial judge adequately instructed the jury on willfulness
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which includes § 841 and its maximum lifetime term of supervised release for drug offenses. In addition, as the government contends, whether Mr. Handley faces a lifetime of supervised release depends on his own conduct and any future violations of the conditions of his supervised release. In other words, compliance is a means to avoid “the infinitely reoccurring prison and supervised release terms” of which Mr. Handley comp 9th Cir.1997) (adopting reasoning drug offenses under § 841 are an exception to terms of supervised release listed in § 3583(b)); United States v. Eng, 14 F.3d 165, 172-73 (2d Cir.1994) (stating § 841(b)(1)(A), which deals with drug offenses, is exception to § 3583(b)); United States v. LeMay, 952 F.2d 995, 998 (8th Cir. 1991) Options: A. holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible B. recognizing conflict C. recognizing the conflict D. holding phrase except as otherwise provided was added to 3583b so it would not conflict with the drug offenses in 841b1a E. holding that drug offenses and taxevasion offenses were properly joined for trial because the likely source of income for which defendant had evaded taxes was drug distribution

assistant: The best answer is D. holding phrase except as otherwise provided was added to 3583b so it would not conflict with the drug offenses in 841b1a
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 constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements between the parties concerning such subject matter, including without limitation, the Prior Agreement; provided that the Restrictive Covenant Agreement, the Acknowledgment regarding the Statement of Company Policy on Insider Trading and Disclosure, the Acknowledgment of the Statement of Company Policy on the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the Acknowledgement regarding the Company’s Colleague Handbook shall remain in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each capitalized term which is defined in the Credit Agreement, but which is not defined in this Fifth Amendment, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Credit Agreement (as amended hereby). Unless otherwise indicated, all section references in this Fifth Amendment refer to the Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: dismiss requires the Court to address the question that was explicitly left unanswered by the Supreme Court in Atlantic Research: whether a PRP who was required to incur costs pursuant to a consent decree may bring a § 107(a) cost recovery action. The Consent Decree obligated ITT to perform work at the site and to reimburse the government for response costs the government had already incurred at the site. As noted in Atlantic Research, “§ 107(a) permits a PRP to recover only the costs it has ‘incurred’ in cleaning up a site.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B)). “When a party pays to satisfy a settlement agreement or a court judgment, it does not incur its own costs of response. Rather, it reimburses other parties for costs that those parties incurred.” Id. A 1, 764 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Although Atlantic Research overruled Options: A. holding that cleanup costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree were not incurred voluntarily and must be sought through a 113f contribution action B. holding that where the action was filed as a class action and a consent decree was entered into entry of the consent decree was sufficient certification of the action as a class action under rule 23 C. holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under 107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred D. holding that the plaintiffs suit for workrelated costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree was a contribution action under 113f E. holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because there was no consent decree left to be terminated

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the plaintiffs suit for workrelated costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree was a contribution action under 113f
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 constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior or simultaneous agreements, written or oral, with respect to the subject matter hereof. All rights and remedies of Issuer and all obligations of Applicant under or connection with this Agreement and any other documents delivered in connection with this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to those provided or available at equity or under any applicable law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: assistance of counsel claim. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. V Mancuso asserts that the use of posthypnotic testimony deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. He contends that the hypnotic process itself undermines the ability to reliably test a witness’ veracity on cross-examination because it. hardens the witness’. memories, whether ■ or not such memories are uncertain or false. Because such memories remain unconscious, Mancuso asserts confrontation is impossible. We have previously rejected this argument. The admission of post-hypnotic testimony does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, See United States v. Awkard, 597 F.2d 667, 669 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Adams, 581 F.2d 193, 198 Options: A. holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony B. holding that credibility determinations are for the jury C. holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility D. holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility E. holding the fact of hypnosis if disclosed to the jury may affect the credibility of evidence but not its admissibility

assistant: The best answer is E. holding the fact of hypnosis if disclosed to the jury may affect the credibility of evidence but not its admissibility
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: services they perform, its relationship with its customers, and by the fact that failure to properly perform the contract could have far-reaching or appalling consequences.” See id. at ¶ 168. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertions, the Armored Car Carrier Act does not create a legal duty distinct from Defendant’s contract obligations. First, while Plaintiff cites to the Armored Car Carrier Act, it does not state what, if any, particular provision of the statute that Defendant violated. Plaintiff simply cites to the definitions section of the Act. Without an allegation that Defendant violated one or more provisions of the Armored Car Carrier Act’s provisions, Plaintiffs negligence claim must fail. See Motyka v. City of Amsterdam, 15 N.Y.2d 134, 139, 256 N.Y.S.2d 595, 204 N.E.2d 635 (1965) (<HOLDING>). Second, to the extent that Plaintiff is Options: A. holding that a statute of general applicability was not enacted for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance B. holding that the filing of a complaint in a class action suit suspends the statute of limitations but a denial of class certification reactivates the statute of limitations for potential plaintiffs C. 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 D. holding that liability arises out of a statute only in limited instances where disregard of the command of the statute results in damage to one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted E. holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that liability arises out of a statute only in limited instances where disregard of the command of the statute results in damage to one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted
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: Debtor represents and warrants to Secured Party that (a) Debtor is the owner of the Collateral and that no other person has any right, title, claim or interest (by way of Lien or otherwise) in, against or to the Collateral, other than Permitted Liens, and (b) upon the filing of UCC-1 financing statements with the Delaware Secretary of State, Secured Party shall have a perfected first-position security interest in the Collateral to the extent that a security interest in the Collateral can be perfected by such filing, except for Permitted Liens.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: insured that the coverage provided by this policy applies only when the vessel is operated by: George Zaglool.” Notably, the provision does not state that it supersedes and replaces the “Covered Persons” provisions. Cf. Steadfast Ins., 283 A.D.2d at 50-51, 727 N.Y.S.2d at 398. While it could be argued that to the extent there is a conflict between the terms of the endorsement and the terms of the preprinted form, the terms of the endorsement should control, the rule is, as noted earlier, that “where two seemingly conflicting provisions reasonably can be reconciled, a court is required to do so to give both effect.” Steadfast Ins., 283 A.D.2d at 51, 727 N.Y.S.2d at 399. Accord County of Columbia v. Continental Ins. Co., 83 N.Y.2d 618, 628, 612 N.Y.S.2d 345, 349, 634 N.E.2d 946 (1994) (<HOLDING>). In order to give effect to both provisions, Options: A. holding that a standard wcel policy with a maritime endorsement is an ocean marine policy B. holding an endorsement to an existing insurance policy which added a new vehicle did not create a new contract of insurance but was merged with and became a part of the original policy C. recognizing that endorsement would prevail if inconsistent with policy provisions D. holding that an insured was not entitled to recover through their endorsement coverage where the policy actually required the insureds to repair rebuild or replace their covered property before the endorsement would be triggered E. holding it is settled that in construing an endorsement to an insurance policy the endorsement and the policy must be read together and the words of the policy remain in full force and effect except as altered by the words of the endorsement

assistant: The best answer is E. holding it is settled that in construing an endorsement to an insurance policy the endorsement and the policy must be read together and the words of the policy remain in full force and effect except as altered by the words of the endorsement
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 Award and the obligation of the Company to deliver the Settlement Shares subject to the Award are subject to compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, to receipt of any approvals by any government or regulatory agency as may be required, and to any determinations the Company may make regarding the application of all such laws, rules and regulations.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Maintain (a) adequate insurance on its properties to such extent and against such risks, including fire, as is customary with companies in the same or a similar business, (b) necessary worker's compensation insurance and (c) such other insurance as may be required by law or the Security Documents or as may reasonably be required in writing by the Lender.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to Section 5 of this Agreement, beginning on the Effective Date and continuing through December 31, 2020 (the “Term”), the Consultant will render the Services described below to the Company on an “as needed” basis.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: as discussed above, Tapia’s allegations as to the content of the tape, if proven, would not entitle him to relief, he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Turner, 63 F.3d at 815. We further find that the district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on the contents of the tape was not an abuse of discretion. See Villafuerte, 111 F.3d at 633. AFFIRMED. 2 . This circuit has never ruled on Tapia’s contention that Chapman review should be used on habeas review when no state court has tested error with Chapman review, see Hanna, 87 F.3d at 1038 n. 2 (refusing to reach the issue), but other circuits are split, with the Eighth Circuit and arguably the Second Circuit taking the minority position argued by Tapia. See Orndorff v. Lockhart, 998 F.2d 1426 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Lyons v. Johnson, 99 F.3d 499 (2d Cir.1996) Options: A. recognizing that the state court need not explicitly rely on chapman to warrant federal review under brecht but not deciding the issue because the error was also harmless under chapman B. holding that chapman harmless error review will be conducted when error is tested for harmlessness for the first time on habeas C. holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard D. holding that a federal habeas court performing a harmless error inquiry on collateral review must employ the standard for harmless error articulated in brecht even if the state courts have never reviewed the error on direct appeal E. holding that chapman mandates harmless error analysis of griffin error

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that chapman harmless error review will be conducted when error is tested for harmlessness for the first time on habeas
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: 397 U.S. 817 90 S.Ct. 1483 25 L.Ed.2d 804 In the Matter of Dan A. SPENCER, Appellant. No. 513. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 28, 1970. May 4, 1970 Rehearing Denied June 15, 1970. See 398 U.S. 968, 90 S.Ct. 2164. Melvin L. Wulf, New York City, for appellant. Neil Dixon, Shreveport, La., for appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 254 La. 294, 223 So.2d 672.

assistant: 1