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: Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., No. H-05-4127, 2008 WL 2962206, at *5-6 (S.D.Tex. July 29, 2008) (finding only one false marking offense when the defendant “made only one separate, distinct decision to mark its stilts after it knew the stilts did not meet all the claims of [the patent at issue]”); Bibow v. Am. Saw & Mfg. Co., 490 F.Supp.2d 128, 129 n. 1 (D.Mass.2007) (opining that "[i]t is doubtful that the statute ever intended to create such a lucrative game of ‘gotcha!’ " by imposing a fine for each lime a press release was "seen in some medium”); Undersea Breathing Sys., Inc. v. Nitrox Techs., Inc., 985 F.Supp. 752, 781 (N.D.Ill.1997) (fining the defendant $500 for a single decision to mark flyers); Sadler-Cisar Inc. v. Comm. Sales Network, 786 F.Supp. 1287, 1296 (N.D.Ohio 1991) (<HOLDING>); Joy Mfg. Co. v. CGM Valve & Gauge Co., 730 Options: A. holding that the application of the enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense is proper only if there is a clear connection between the firearm that was used in the other offense and the one that was used in the offense of conviction B. holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense C. holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony D. holding that that the trial court erred when it determined that firstdegree sexual offense was an aggravated offense E. holding that a defendant was liable for only one offense when falsely marking a device because continuous markings over a given time constitute a single offense

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a defendant was liable for only one offense when falsely marking a device because continuous markings over a given time constitute a single 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The assignments, restrictions and licenses contemplated in Section 3.06 , Section 3.07 , Section 3.10 and Section 3.13 of this Agreement shall be subject to any required Governmental Authority approvals, disclosures, restrictions or reservations, including any of the foregoing that arise out of the funding of any Statement of Work, in whole or in part, by a Governmental Authority. The Parties shall use reasonable efforts in good faith to obtain any and all such approvals that may be required and to ensure any required disclosures are timely made. GE’s obligation to provide GE Provided R&D Services and services pursuant to a Collaboration shall be subject to any restrictions set forth in the Technology Center Agreement.

assistant: Approvals
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) Tenant shall procure and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance with respect to the Premises. Landlord, Steiner Building Company, L.L.C. (“SBC”), Landlord’s Manager (presently Steiner Equities Group, L.L.C.) and Landlord’s mortgagee(s) shall be named as additional insureds. The liability insurance policy shall protect Landlord, Tenant and Landlord’s Manager and mortgagee(s) against any liability which arises from any occurrence on or about the Premises, or which arises from any liability, claims or costs indicated in Par. 14 against which Tenant is required to indemnify Landlord.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the Tax Court relied on its previous opinion in Manocchio v. Commissioner, supra, which reached the equal treatment issue. However, at the time that Manocchio was decided by the Tax Court, the Commissioner had not issued Revenue Ruling 83-3 which disallowed the deduction of educational expenses that were allocable to a portion of the veterans’ educational benefits other than flight training. This ruling, however, was prospective only. After the Tax Court had rendered its decision in this case, the Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits reached different conclusions as to whether the application of Revenue Rulings 80-173 and 83-3 have resulted in the disparate treatment of similarly situated taxpayers. Manocchio v. Commissioner, 710 F.2d 1400, 1404 & n.2 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Baker v. United States, 748 F.2d 1465 (11th Options: A. holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction B. recognizing this distinction C. holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification D. holding rational basis as standard for commerce clause inquiries E. recognizing heightened rational basis scrutiny

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction
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: 7 or 8 of the NLRA: At times it has not been clear whether the particular activity regulated by the States was governed by § 7 or § 8 or was, perhaps, outside both these sections. But courts are not primary tribunals to adjudicate such issues. It is essential to the administration of the Act that these determinations be left in the first instance to the National Labor Relations Board.... ^ ^ ^ ^ In the absence of the Board’s clear determination that an activity is neither protected nor prohibited or of compelling precedent applied to essentially undisputed facts, it is not for this Court to decide whether such activities are subject to state jurisdiction. Garmon, 359 U.S. at 244-46, 79 S.Ct. 773 (emphasis added). See also Bud Antle, Inc. v. Barbosa, 45 F.3d 1261, 1271 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Both Wasden and amicus suggest that even if Options: A. holding that an arbitration agreement between a charging party and an employer precludes the eeoc from seeking purely monetary relief in federal court on behalf of the charging party but not from seeking broad injunctive relief B. holding that a private party may bring an action in a federal district court seeking injunctive relief on the basis of garmon preemption for only arguably protected or prohibited activity C. holding that garmon preemption provides no basis for removal jurisdiction in federal court and observing that the lower courts are uniform in finding that garmon preemption under the nlra does not completely preempt state laws so as to provide removal jurisdiction D. holding that garmon preemption is inapplicable in eases involving the americans with disabilities act E. holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a private party may bring an action in a federal district court seeking injunctive relief on the basis of garmon preemption for only arguably protected or prohibited activity
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 use the proceeds of the Extensions of Credit (i) to pay fees, commissions and expenses in connection with the Transactions, (ii) to repay existing Indebtedness of Borrower and its Subsidiaries as contemplated under Section 6.1(g)(iii) , and (iii) for working capital and general corporate purposes of Borrower and its Subsidiaries (including Permitted Acquisitions, joint venture Investments permitted hereunder, Restricted Payments permitted hereunder and repurchases of Equity Interests permitted hereunder). No part of the proceeds of the Loans will be used by Borrower or its Subsidiaries, directly or indirectly, in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment or giving of money, or anything else of value, to any Person in violation of the FCPA or any other applicable Anti-Corruption Laws.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: use of the yahoo services and transfer , posting and uploading of software , technology , and other technical data via the yahoo services may be subject to the export and import laws of the united states and other countries .

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 shall pay the fees and expenses of its advisers, counsel, accountants and other experts, if any, and all other expenses incurred by such party incident to the negotiation, preparation, execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. The Company shall pay all transfer agent fees, stamp taxes and other taxes and duties levied in connection with the delivery of any Securities to the Purchaser. The Purchaser as designated on the signature page will receive a non-accountable legal documentation preparation fee equal to $5,000 which will be netted against its Purchase Price.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 29, ¶ 21, 137 P.3d 787). Defendant also explains that the "'evidentiary threshold at [the preliminary hearing] is relatively low'" and "'a showing of "probable cause" entails only the presentation of "evidence sufficient to support a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the charged crime."'" (Alteration in original) (quoting State v, Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, 19, 289 P.3d 444). And Defendant reminds us se is true. It is true that some courts have considered changes in a defendant's motive to cross-examine and court-imposed limitations on eross-examination as factors relevant to determining whether a defendant had a full opportunity to cross-examine a witness during a preliminary hearing, Seq, eg., Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1481, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (<HOLDING>); State v. Henderson, 2006-NMCA-059, 119, 189 Options: A. holding that by cutting off all questioning about an event that the state conceded had taken place and that a jury might reasonably have found furnished the witness a motive for favoring the prosecution in his testimony the courts ruling violated the defendants rights secured by the confrontation clause B. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness C. holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment D. holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand E. holding that the admission of prior testimony that had been subjected to crossexamination violated the confrontation clause because the state did not prove that the witness was unavailable

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that by cutting off all questioning about an event that the state conceded had taken place and that a jury might reasonably have found furnished the witness a motive for favoring the prosecution in his testimony the courts ruling violated the defendants rights secured by the confrontation clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All required tax returns or federal, state, county, municipal, local, foreign and other taxes and assessments have been properly prepared and filed by MBM Cleaners for all years for which such returns are due unless an extension for filing any such return has been properly prepared and filed. Any and all federal, state, county, municipal, local, foreign and other taxes, assessments, including any and all interest, penalties and additions imposed with respect to such amounts have been paid or provided for. MBM Cleaners has no outstanding tax liabilities and has not received notice of any tax inquiry or audit against it.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: For purposes of this Option, Participant’s Service will be considered terminated as of the date Participant is no longer providing Services to the Company, its Parent or one of its Subsidiaries (regardless of the reason for such termination and whether or not later found to be invalid or in breach of employment laws in the jurisdiction where Participant is employed or the terms of Participant’s employment agreement, if any) (the “ Termination Date ”). The Committee shall have the exclusive discretion to determine when Participant is no longer actively providing Services for purposes of Participant’s Option (including whether Participant may still be considered to be providing Services while on an approved leave of absence). Unless otherwise provided in this Option Agreement or determined by the Company, Participant’s right to vest in this Option under the Plan, if any, will terminate as of the Termination Date and will not be extended by any notice period (e.g., Participant’s period of services would not include any contractual notice period or any period of “garden leave” or similar period mandated under employment laws in the jurisdiction where Participant is employed or the terms of Participant’s employment agreement, if any). Following the Termination Date, Participant may exercise the Option only as set forth in the Notice and this Section, provided that the period (if any) during which Participant may exercise the Option after the Termination Date, if any, will commence on the date Participant ceases to provide Services and will not be extended by any notice period mandated under employment laws in the jurisdiction where Participant is employed or terms of Participant’s employment agreement, if any unless the Participant is providing continuing Services as provided under the Plan. If Participant does not exercise this Option within the termination period set forth in the Notice or the termination periods set forth above, the Option shall terminate in its entirety. In no event, may any Option be exercised after the Expiration Date of the Option as set forth in the Notice.

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: of the August 2003 order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. In January 2004, Sepulveda filed a second petition seeking review of the December 2003 order denying his motion for reconsideration of the August 2003 order. The Government has moved to dismiss both petitions, arguing that because Sepulveda’s motions to reopen and reconsider are “grounded on assertions of entitlement to relief under [8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b and 1255],” this Court is' barred from reviewing the orders denying such motions under '8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). DISCUSSION Section 1252(a)(2)(B) of Title 8 of the United States Code, as a h Cir.2003) (finding that a nondiscretionary determination regarding eligibility for adjustment of status was reviewable); Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492, 497-98 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, in his July 1999 oral decision, the IJ Options: A. holding that we have jurisdiction to review an aliens legal eligibility for relief under former ina 212c B. holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling C. holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings D. holding that a legal determination regarding an aliens eligibility for adjustment of status was not barred by the statute E. holding that we had jurisdiction and granting aliens petition where the bia unlawfully relied on the nonviability of the aliens marriage in denying her application for adjustment of status

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a legal determination regarding an aliens eligibility for adjustment of status was not barred by the statute
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: (stating elements of tortious interference with prospective contractual relations claim); DeBerry v. McCain, 275 S.C. 569, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (1981) (stating elements of tortious interference with contract claim); Crandall Corp. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 302 S.C. 265, 395 S.E.2d 179, 180 (1990) (stating elements of tortious interference with prospective contractual relations claim). Therefore, the resolution of Pechiney's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the tortious interference claims does not depend on a choice of law determination, and, for convenience, I cite to precedent based on Delaware law. 12 . Hunter-Douglas was later overruled on a point not pertinent here. See Midwest Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 1358-59 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 13 . Thomas Grabowski is an employee of Options: A. holding that federal circuit would henceforth apply its own law rather than regional circuit law to questions involving the relationship between patent law and other federal and state law rights B. holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law C. holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law D. holding that a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit E. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that federal circuit would henceforth apply its own law rather than regional circuit law to questions involving the relationship between patent law and other federal and state law rights
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided in Sections 2(b) and 4 and, if applicable, in Appendix C, the RSUs will vest in equal annual installments of 25% of the Shares over a four-year period on each anniversary of the Date of Grant, subject to the Participant’s continued Service through each applicable vesting date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Vishay Singapore shall pay Executive a base salary of not less than TWD 16,938,683 per year (the " Base Salary "), which shall be reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee. Such Base Salary shall be paid in accordance with Vishay Singapore's standard salary policies as they exist from time to time, subject to such deductions (including the Executive's share of Central Provident Fund contributions, if applicable), if any, as are required by law or elected by Executive.

assistant: Base Salary
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 sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between the Company and me relating to the subject matter herein and supersedes all prior discussions between us. No oral statements made by either party either before or after signing this Agreement are part of this Agreement. No modification of or amendment to this Agreement, nor any waiver of any rights under this agreement, will be effective unless in writing signed by the party to be charged. Any subsequent change or changes in my duties, salary or compensation will not affect the validity or scope of this Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has no direct or indirect Subsidiaries other than those listed in Schedule 3.1(a) hereto. Except as disclosed in Schedule 3.1(a) hereto, the Company owns, directly or indirectly, all of the capital stock or comparable equity interests of each Subsidiary free and clear of any and all Liens, and all the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock or comparable equity interest of each Subsidiary are validly issued and are fully paid, non-assessable and free of preemptive and similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: from the drug’s somnolence level and toward the rate at which customers discontinued using the drug because of somnolence effects. The manuals also indicated that eetirizine, Zyrtec’s active ingredient, does “not cause sedation.” The district court found this evidence insufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction and denied Schering’s motion. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION I. Standards of Review We review a district court’s evi-dentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Phoenix Assocs. III v. Stone, 60 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir.1995). “Either an error of law or a clear error of fact may constitute an abuse of discretion.” Charette v. Town of Oyster Bay, 159 F.3d 749, 755 (2d Cir.1998); see also Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (<HOLDING>). An evidentiary ruling that is an abuse of Options: A. holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment B. holding an authority ruling may only be set aside if arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law C. holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous D. holding that a factual finding may be set aside if it rests on an erroneous view of the law E. holding that judgments restfing on an erroneous view of the law may be set aside on that basis

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a factual finding may be set aside if it rests on an erroneous view of the law
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 justifies a sentence from within the aggravated range. In addition, the trial court completed individual judgment and commitment forms specifying the relevant aggravators and mitigator for each conviction. These forms specifically indicated that “each and every aggravated factor in and of itself outweighs all the mitigating factors and justifies from within the aggravated range this sentence.” Thus, the trial court here eliminated the need for any appellate “second guessing” as to the weight it accorded each factor on each sentence, and it properly exercised discretion in “determin[ing] that one factor in aggravation outweigh[ed] more than one factor in mitigation.” Ahearn, 307 N.C. at 597, 300 S.E.2d at 697; see also State v. Daniels, 319 N.C. 452, 454, 355 S.E.2d 136, 137 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, defendant’s argument fails. To Options: A. holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion B. holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion C. holding that a trial courts weighing of mitigating and aggravating factors will not be disturbed absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion D. holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court E. holding that trial court retains wide discretion to apply or reject mitigating and aggravating factors as well as to interpret meaning of individual factors and its determination must be upheld absent abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a trial courts weighing of mitigating and aggravating factors will not be disturbed absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion
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: masquerade and you agree not to combine a dispute that is subject to arbitration under our terms with a dispute that is not eligible for arbitration under our terms.the arbitration will be administered by the american arbitration association ( aaa ) under its commercial arbitration rules in effect at the time the arbitration is started , including the optional rules for emergency measures of protection and the supplementary procedures for consumer-related disputes ( together , the `` aaa rules '' ) .

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: amended pleading raises new theories of recovery that are not addressed in the motion for summary judgment, it is improper to grant summary judgment on the entire case. See Johnson v. Rollen, 818 S.W.2d 180, 183 (Tex.App. — Houston [1 st Dist.] 1991, no writ); Whiddon v. Metni, 650 S.W.2d 904, 906 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). But a trial court can grant partial summary judgment on the claims that were addressed in the summary judgment motion and carried forward in the amended pleading without requiring the summary judgment motion to be amended. See Whiddon, 650 S.W.2d at 906. Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted DuPont’s motions for summary judgment filed before the amended petition. Cf. Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>). IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Because the trial Options: A. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed B. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed C. holding because trial court fully considered plaintiffs response to summary judgment motion failure to render summary judgment without notice or hearing harmless thus trial court was not required to vacate the summary judgment and then reinstate it to accomplish the same end D. holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived E. holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding because trial court fully considered plaintiffs response to summary judgment motion failure to render summary judgment without notice or hearing harmless thus trial court was not required to vacate the summary judgment and then reinstate it to accomplish the same end
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 Company agrees to pay to the Secured Party all out-of-pocket expenses (including reasonable expenses for legal services of every kind) of, or incident to, the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Section 4, or performance by the Secured Party of any obligations of the Company in respect of the Collateral which the Company has failed or refused to perform upon reasonable notice, or any actual or attempted sale, or any exchange, enforcement, collection, compromise or settlement in respect of any of the Collateral, and for the care of the Collateral and defending or asserting rights and claims of the Secured Party in respect thereof, by litigation or otherwise, including expenses of insurance, and all such expenses shall be Secured Obligations to the Agent secured under Section 3 hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court should also consider the types of sentences available, relevant policy statements, and the need to avoid sentencing disparities. See id. 2. If, after considering the foregoing factors, the court finds by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has committed the violations alleged, the court may continue him on probation, with or without extending the term or modifying or enlarging conditions, or revoke probation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3565. 3. The Sentencing Guidelines’ treatment of revocation of probation is advisory rather than mandatory, and these policy statements are only one of the factors the court shall consider in addressing modification of supervised release. See United States v. Schwegel, 126 F.3d 551 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 4. The Probation Office’s petition and the Options: A. holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc 3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc 3583d B. holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release C. holding that supervised release provisions remained advisory after amendments to 18 usc 3583 D. holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses E. holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc 3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that supervised release provisions remained advisory after amendments to 18 usc 3583
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for J.P. Morgan Securities LLC pursuant to that certain engagement letter dated August 24, 2016, the fees and expenses of which will be paid by the Company, neither the Company nor its Subsidiaries or any of their respective officers, directors, employees or agents has employed any broker or finder or incurred any liability for any financial advisory fees, brokerage fees, commissions or finder’s fees, and no broker or finder has acted directly or indirectly for the Company in connection with this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby.

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

user: 3. Each Recipient Party shall notify the Disclosing Party in the event that any Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party is required to be disclosed by the Recipient Party by judicial, administrative or other govern mental order. Such notification shall be made reasonably promptly so that the Disclosing Party, at its expense, may seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All information relating to or concerning the Company or any of its Subsidiaries set forth in this Agreement and provided to the Purchaser and otherwise in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby is true and correct in all material respects and the Company has not omitted to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made herein or therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. No event or circumstance has occurred or exists with respect to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or its or their business, properties, prospects, operations or financial conditions, which, under applicable law, rule or regulation, requires public disclosure or announcement by the Company but which has not been so publicly announced or disclosed (assuming for this purpose that the Company’s reports filed under the 1934 Act are being incorporated into an effective registration statement filed by the Company under the 1933 Act).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of 210 months’ imprisonment. Under the post -Booker advisory guideline regime, the district court must still consider the applicable guideline range of 188— 235 months, but it may vary from the range if it concludes reasonably that factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) warrant a different sentence. Even under the mandatory guidelines, however, the district court was able to consider the § 3553(a) factors in determining where within the mandatory range Brooks should be sentenced. That the court elected a sentence of 210 months from within the range of 188 to 235 months gives us confidence that the added flexibility of the post-Booker regime would not have led the district court to impose a more favorable sentence. See United States v. Perez-Ramirez, 415 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Brooks has not raised any argument, after Options: A. holding that even without booker constitutional error in the district courts application of the guidelines there could be nonconstitutional error where the court applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion B. holding that because the district court did not fully use its discretion to depart from the guidelines when determining the proper range or in imposing the term of sentence sentence was 2 months above sentencingrange minimum any booker error was harmless C. holding that where district court left unused some of its discretion to impose a more favorable sentence nonconstitutional booker error was harmless D. holding that where a district court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the guidelines any error that may attach to a defendants sentence under booker is harmless E. holding that booker constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because on remand the district court would have given defendant the same sentence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where district court left unused some of its discretion to impose a more favorable sentence nonconstitutional booker error was harmless
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: basis that the policy excluded from the definition of an underinsured motor vehicle an uninsured vehicle and on the plain meaning of the statute applicable to un-derinsurance coverage which clearly referred to “the tortfeasor’s insurance coverage,” an indication that the coverages were mutually exclusive); Evenchik v. State Farm Ins. Co., 139 Ariz. 453, 458, 679 P.2d 99, 104 (1984) (rejecting plaintiffs argument that “since the uninsured motorist has zero coverage he is underinsured and the [underinsured] coverage kicks in on top of the uninsured limit to provide additional coverage” and noting that under the statute, when a negligent driver or owner has liability coverage, the vehicle is not uninsured); Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ferreira, 71 Haw. 341, 345, 790 P.2d 910, 913 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Berg, 359 N.W.2d at 729 (“The same motorist Options: A. holding that under the plain and obvious meaning of the uim statute a prerequisite to the term underinsured motor vehicle is the existence of bodily injury liability insurance coverage which is less than the liability for damages imposed by law and where no such coverage existed tortfeasor was not underinsured under the statute but rather uninsured concluding that terms underinsured and uninsured are mutually exclusive as applied to the same motor vehicle and the combination of these two coverages by the insured was contrary to legislative intent B. holding that insurance policys exclusion of vehicles owned by furnished for or made available for the regular use of the named insured from the definition of an underinsured motor vehicle is valid C. holding that the amount of coverage determines whether a vehicle is underinsured D. holding that 27721 contains a requirement that the insured prove that an alleged third party tortfeasor is in fact an owner or operator of an uninsured underinsured or hit and run motor vehicle as a condition precedent to the recovery of uim benefits E. holding that the insurance applicable to the tortfeasors vehicle must be compared to the underinsured vehicle policy limits to determine whether a vehicle is underinsured

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that under the plain and obvious meaning of the uim statute a prerequisite to the term underinsured motor vehicle is the existence of bodily injury liability insurance coverage which is less than the liability for damages imposed by law and where no such coverage existed tortfeasor was not underinsured under the statute but rather uninsured concluding that terms underinsured and uninsured are mutually exclusive as applied to the same motor vehicle and the combination of these two coverages by the insured was contrary to legislative intent
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Recipient may disclose Confidential Information only to its employees, agents, consultants and contractors on a need-to-know basis, and only if such employees, agents, consultants and contractors have executed appropriate written agreements with Recipient sufficient to enable Recipient to enforce all the provisions of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to Cadle, junior unavoidable hens, like the tax hen in this case, should not be included in the computation of the impairment. Using this approach, the junior tax lien should have been removed from the impairment calculation, and no amount of Cadle’s judicial hen would be avoided. In In re Kolich, 328 F.3d 406 (8th Cir. 2003), the Eighth Circuit considered whether hens junior to the judicial hen in question should be included in the calculation under § 522(f)(2)(A). The court pointed out that subsection 522(f)(2)(A)(ii) states the computation of the impairment shah include “all other hens on the property.” The Eighth Circuit interpreted the term “all other hens on the property” to include junior hens. 328 F.3d at 410; see also In re Smith, 315 B.R. 636, 641 (Bankr.D.Mass.2004) (<HOLDING>). Cadle contests the Eighth Circuit’s Options: A. holding 522f2 does not distinguish between senior hens and junior hens between those having greater and lesser priority under state law B. holding federal law does not prevent a state from choosing between prospective operation of its decision and that of relation backward C. holding that under texas law the mere representation of a party in a lawsuit does not establish privity between an attorney and his or her client D. holding that it was permissible to distinguish between hospital and clinic providers of psychiatric services and private psychiatrists E. holding that the fair and adequate representation requirement was not satisfied because of litigation between plaintiff and defendant the antagonism between the parties and the lack of support plaintiff garnered in its claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding 522f2 does not distinguish between senior hens and junior hens between those having greater and lesser priority under state law
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 Servicer’s appointment as custodian will become effective as of the Cut-Off Date and will continue in full force and effect until terminated pursuant to this Section 2.2(g) . If the Bank resigns as Servicer in accordance with Section 6.6 or if all of the rights and obligations of the Servicer have been terminated under Section 7.1 , the appointment of the Servicer as custodian hereunder may be terminated by the Indenture Trustee, or by the Noteholders evidencing not less than 66⅔% of the Note Balance of the Controlling Class, in the same manner as the Indenture Trustee or such Noteholders may terminate the rights and obligations of the Servicer under Section 7.1 . As soon as practicable after any termination of such appointment, the Servicer will deliver to the Indenture Trustee (or, at the direction of the Indenture Trustee, to its agent) the Receivable Files and the related accounts and records maintained by the Servicer at such place or places as the Indenture Trustee may reasonably designate; provided, however , that with respect to authoritative copies of the Receivables constituting electronic chattel paper, the Servicer, in its sole discretion, shall either (i) continue to hold any such authoritative copies on behalf of the Issuer and the Indenture Trustee or the Indenture Trustee’s agent or (ii) deliver copies of such authoritative copies and destroy the authoritative copies maintained by the Servicer prior to its termination such that such copy delivered to the Indenture Trustee or the Indenture Trustee’s agent becomes the authoritative copy of the Receivable constituting electronic chattel paper.

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: racial considerations. IV. DISCUSSION We begin our analysis with the undisputed fact that the prosecutor admitted to the trial judge that race was a factor that he considered in exercising the State’s peremptory challenges. Wallace urges that this admission, by itself, establishes a Batson violation. The Second Circuit has rejected substantially the same contention. Howard, 986 F.2d at 26-28. Like the district court, we are persuaded by the Second Circuit’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the issue. As the Second Circuit explained, “the acknowledgment that race was part of the prosecutor’s motivation, or even a finding to that effect unaided by acknowledgment, is not inconsistent with the existence of some other race-neutral explanation for the prosecutor’s action. h Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). We have reviewed the record and cannot say Options: A. holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs review of trial judges findings on batson claims because they turn largely on credibility B. recognizing that factual findings were clearly erroneous where the record before the court was simply devoid of any basis for the district courts conclusion C. holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous D. holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs district courts factual findings based on state record documentary evidence and inferences from other facts E. holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies unless judgment is entered on the basis of documentary evidence alone

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs district courts factual findings based on state record documentary evidence and inferences from other facts