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: explosives — may involve merely negligent or reckless conduct” (citations omitted)); United States v. Zuniga, 553 F.3d 1330, 1334-35 (10th Cir.2009) (finding it "reasonable to surmise that those who possess deadly weapons in a penal institution typically intend to possess them,” and thus concluding that the Texas statute criminalizing that conduct, whether intentional, knowing or reckless, satisfied Be-gay ). Furthermore, in pre-Begay cases, we held in other contexts that a PSAS violation is not a crime of violence because such a violation may be committed with a mens rea lower than intent. See United States v. Otero, 502 F.3d 331, 335 (3d Cir.2007) (concluding that a PSAS violation is not a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2); Popal v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 249, 254 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Johnson argues that Pennsylvania simple Options: A. holding that a conviction under colorevstat 186401 for criminally negligent child abuse was not a crime of violence under 18 usc 16a because physical force was not an element of that crime B. holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence C. holding that seconddegree manslaughter was not a crime of violence and thus was not an aggravated felony warranting an aliens removal D. holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc 16 E. holding that an aliens psas conviction was not a crime of violence under 18 usc 16a that would render the alien removable as an aggravated felon

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an aliens psas conviction was not a crime of violence under 18 usc 16a that would render the alien removable as an aggravated felon
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 Shares are restricted in that they may not be sold, transferred or otherwise alienated or hypothecated except as provided in Section 18 of the Plan until these restrictions are removed or expire and Shares are issued to the Participant as described in Section 3 of this Agreement. The Award Shares are also restricted in the sense that they may be forfeited to the Company (the “ Forfeiture Restrictions ”).

assistant: Forfeitures
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: Id. III. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s February 14; 2014 order denying Jones’s motion to reopen the time to file a notice of appeal and alternative Rule 60(b) motion. However, because Jones’s COA motion expressly evinced an intent to appeal and the district court never entered its judgment in a separate document from the October 22, 2012 order; we further order the district court clerk to docket Jones’s December 21, 2012 motion for a COA as also a construed notice of appeal from the district court’s October 22, 2012 order denying Jones’s § 2254 petition. AFFIRMED. 1 . The district court also correctly denied Jones's alternative Rule 60(b) motion. See Vencor Hosps, v. Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co., 279 F.3d 1306, 1310-11 (11th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Generally, a notice of appeal in a civil Options: A. holding that a lower court cannot grant a rule 60b motion after an appeal has been filed unless the appellate court grants a limited remand upon the trial court entering a memorandum indicating its inclination to grant the rule 60b motion B. holding that rule 4a6 provides the exclusive method for extending a partys time to appeal for failure to receive actual notice that a judgment or order has been entered and noting that fedrcivp 60b cannot be used to circumvent rule 4a6s 180day limitation C. holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself D. holding that defenses under rule 60b may be waived E. holding attorneys failure to object does not warrant rule 60b relief

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that rule 4a6 provides the exclusive method for extending a partys time to appeal for failure to receive actual notice that a judgment or order has been entered and noting that fedrcivp 60b cannot be used to circumvent rule 4a6s 180day limitation
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: whom RAMIL, J., joins. I concur in the result reached, but must disagree with the totality of circumstances formulation seemingly adopted in this case. The facts of this ease call for a straightforward application of fundamental precepts established in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and certain of its progeny. Basic Miranda-related propositions bear recounting (1) to demonstrate their applicability to this case, (2) to elucidate the perplexity that may result from reformulating them, and (3) to highlight the harm that would be caused by them misapplication. I. Miranda extends the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination to out-of-court statements obtained from an individual during custodial interrogation. See id. at 461, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (<HOLDING>). That decision defined custodial interrogation Options: A. holding that the drug tax violated the privilege against selfincrimination B. holding that on march 13 2004 it was clearly established that the fourth amendment protects people from medical procedures induced by lawenforcement officers C. recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination D. holding that the privilege against selfincrimination protects individuals from informal compulsion exerted by lawenforcement officers during incustody questioning E. holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the privilege against selfincrimination protects individuals from informal compulsion exerted by lawenforcement officers during incustody questioning
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 training program be “chosen by [ML’s] mother.” The instant condition therefore is consonant with the Florida Constitution and our holding in L.M. II. We note however that some uncertainty exists as to the meaning of “spiritual,” as opposed to “moral,” training. The State at oral argument conceded, and we agree, that “spiritual” training, to the extent that it means religious training, is unconstitutional. We therefore strike the words “and spiritual” from the judge’s order. The Federal Constitution The United States Supreme Court tells us how to evaluate legislation to determine whether the legislation violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: The legislation must pass the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971) (<HOLDING>). The court explains the Lemon test: Under the Options: A. holding mere deviation unconstitutional B. holding that amendment to bankruptcy act was unconstitutional because it infringed upon state sovereignty C. holding that state bans on samesex marriage are unconstitutional D. holding pennsylvania state ethics act unconstitutional as applied to former judges E. holding unconstitutional state aid to nonpublic schools

assistant: The best answer is E. holding unconstitutional state aid to nonpublic schools
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: used machines built in the forum to manufacture its products. 97 F.3d 1100, 1103 (8th Cir.1996). Thus, Flexsys maintains that “simple commercial contacts” unrelated to a plaintiffs claim are not transformed into an adequate constitutional basis for jurisdiction, even when the sales are of a much greater dollar volume than Flexsys’s sales in Minnesota. See Nichols v. G.D. Searle & Co., 991 F.2d 1195, 1198 (4th Cir.1993) (finding insufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction defendant’s annual sales of $9-13 million in the forum state over a five-year period, which constituted 2% of defendant’s total sales, employment of sales people in the forum state, and purchases in the forum state); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 578 (2nd Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Lorix counters that Flexsys misstates the Options: A. holding that a ceos trip to the forum state to negotiate a services contract did not constitute the continuous and systematic general business contacts required to subject the corporation to general jurisdiction in the state B. holding that the court must look for continuous and systematic general business contacts ie general jurisdiction if the causes of action do not arise from or relate to the foreign defendants contacts with the forum state C. holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction D. holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum E. holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction
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 Grantor shall keep and maintain complete, accurate and proper books and records with respect to the Collateral owned by such Grantor, and furnish to the Administrative Agent, with sufficient copies for each of the Secured Parties, such reports relating to the Collateral as the Administrative Agent shall from time to time reasonably request. Each Grantor will give prompt notice in writing to the Administrative Agent and the Lenders of the occurrence of any Default or Event of Default and of any other development, financial or otherwise, which could reasonably be expected to materially and adversely affect the Collateral.

assistant: Records
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: Such Seller is the record and beneficial owner of the outstanding Shares set forth opposite such Seller’s name on Exhibit A hereto, and has good and marketable title to such Shares, free and clear of all Encumbrances. Such Seller has full right, power and authority to transfer and deliver to the Buyer valid title to the Shares held by such Seller, free and clear of all Encumbrances. Immediately following the Closing, the Buyer will be the record and beneficial owner of such Shares, and have good and marketable title to such Shares, free and clear of all Encumbrances. Except pursuant to this Agreement, there is no contractual obligation pursuant to which such Seller has, directly or indirectly, granted any option, warrant or other right to any Person to acquire any Shares or other equity interests in the Company.

assistant: Titles
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: On such Sale Date, no litigation, claim, demand, administrative or regulatory proceeding or governmental investigation shall be pending, threatened or contemplated and no order, injunction or decree shall have been entered that either (i) would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect with respect to the Seller, or (ii) enjoins, restrains or prohibits or seeks to enjoin, restrain or prohibit this Agreement or consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: moreover , the company solely owns all design rights , databases and compilation and other intellectual property rights in and to the service , in each case whether registered or unregistered , and any related goodwill .

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: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without regard to its conflict of law principles. Each Party submits to the jurisdiction of any courts of the State of Texas in the County of Harris, or of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division). Each Party hereby (a) irrevocably waives any objection that it may now or hereafter have to the laying of venue in the courts referred to in this paragraph, (b) irrevocably waives and agrees not to plead or claim in any such court that any such action or proceeding brought therein has been brought in an inconvenient forum, and (c) irrevocably waives right to a trial by jury in any action, proceeding, or counterclaim arising out of, relating to, or in connection with this Agreement or performance hereunder.

assistant: Venues
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 “decreased short term survival” is, in effect, a loss of chance instruction and contrary to Indiana law. We agree. We first note that this instruction again correctly states the § 323 standard of proximate causation. However, this instruction erroneously defines the “harm” as the loss of a chance of survival. This instruction effectively combines the loss of chance doctrine and the § 323 standard. However, these options are alternative and incompatible approaches for imposing liability in cases such as this. The supreme court in Mayhue clearly adopted the § 323 approach in this class of cases while rejecting the loss of chance doctrine. See Mayhue 653 N ed from Cummings’s claim for pain and suffering. See Kolkman v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 511 N.E.2d 478, 480 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Therefore, we Options: A. holding that as a general rule a claim for spousal loss of consortium requires proof of a tortious act that caused the claimants spouse personal injury B. holding that plaintiffs claim for loss of consortium can proceed even where the injured spouse was contributorily negligent C. recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse D. holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium E. holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium
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: 23.5% of the American population, a decrease from 45% in 1960. United States Census Bureau, (2000). Profile of General Characteristics for the United States. Some read this as a decline in the family tradition rather than an expansion of the definition. Nonetheless, there is no legislative history or case law showing the intent of and/or interpreting the Artificial Insemination Act within the context of a family headed by a same-gender couple. The Legislature, however, has established public policy on the thematic analysis to be given matters pertaining to children. In custody disputes, judicial determinations will rest upon an amalgam of considerations all considered “in the best interest of the child.” N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. See also Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 696 A.2d 556 (1997) (<HOLDING>) In the normal course, children do not appear Options: A. holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the best interest of the children require the continuation of primary physical custody with defendant and secondary custody with plaintiff and the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law for this court to determine whether the guidelines were followed B. recognizing that the child custody act required that the natural parent presumption must be seriously considered and heavily weighted in favor of the parent but that the presumption is rebutted if the clear and convincing evidence establishes that the best interest of the child is served by awarding custody to the third party C. holding that when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes and the policy of this state it must first be tested in light of the best interest of the child standard D. holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles E. holding that the primary and overarching consideration in custody determination is the best interest of the child

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the primary and overarching consideration in custody determination is the best interest of the child
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: an employee’s eligibility for, receipt of, plan benefits. See Stiltner v. Beretta, U.S.A. Corp., 74 F.3d 1473, 1480-81 (4th Cir.1996)(en banc.) (intentional infliction of emotion distress claim based upon employer’s alleged termination of employee to avoid paying her benefits was preempted); (4) state laws that conflict with the provisions of ERISA or operate to frustrate its objectives. See Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 117 S.Ct. 1754, 138 L.Ed.2d 45 (1997) (preempting application of Louisiana’s community property law which would have allowed first wife to make a testamentary transfer of her interest in participant’s retirement benefits and survivor’s annuity); and (5) state laws that require employers to provide certain benefits. See Metropolitan Life 471 U.S. 724, 105 S.Ct. 2380 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs claims in the instant case fall Options: A. holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans B. holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans C. holding that statute related to erisa plans pursuant to 514a because it prohibited plans from being structured in a manner requiring reimbursement in the event of a recovery from a third party D. recognizing that it was beyond dispute that a state statute that required all insured benefit plans to submit to an extra layer of review for certain benefit denials had a substantial effect on erisa plans E. holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed by one or more of the parties to this Agreement on any number of separate counterparts, and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Agreement by facsimile transmission or by electronic mail as a “.pdf” or “.tif” attachment shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof. A set of the copies of this Agreement signed by all the parties shall be lodged with the Borrower and the Administrative Agent.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the Does acted in concert. Therefore, the Court concludes that joinder of the Doe Defendants in this action does not satisfy Rule 20(a). 2. Discretionary Severance Even if joinder of the Doe Defendants in this action met the requirements of Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to sever and dismiss all but one Doe Defendant to avoid causing prejudice and unfairness to Defendants, and in the interest of justice. See Wynn, 234 F.Supp.2d at 1088. First, permitting joinder in this case would undermine Rule 20(a)’s purpose of promoting judicial economy and trial convenience because it would result in a logistically unmanageable case. See Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. 11C Music, 202 F.R.D. 229, 232-33 (M.D.Tenn.2001) (<HOLDING>). Second, permitting joinder would force the Options: A. holding permissive joinder of 770 putative defendants would not promote judicial economy because the courts courtroom could not accommodate all of the defendants and their attorneys and therefore could not hold case management conferences and could not try all of plaintiffs claims together B. recognizing that without claim preclusion plaintiffs in small claims cases will not feel obligated to present all of their claims or all of their evidence and they can simply file again if need be C. recognizing that evidence of government knowledge of the defendants conduct could be part of a defendants argument that it did not knowingly submit false claims D. holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under 1983 E. holding that the issue preclusion branch of res judicata does not apply to certain arbitration proceedings because such application would not promote judicial economy consistent judicial outcomes or finality

assistant: The best answer is A. holding permissive joinder of 770 putative defendants would not promote judicial economy because the courts courtroom could not accommodate all of the defendants and their attorneys and therefore could not hold case management conferences and could not try all of plaintiffs claims together
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 to be given under the terms of this Agreement to the Company shall be addressed to the Company in care of the Secretary of the Company at the address given beneath the signature of the Company’s authorized officer on this Agreement, and any notice to be given to the Employee shall be addressed to the Employee at the address given beneath the Employee’s signature on this Agreement. By a notice given pursuant to this Section 9, either party may hereafter designate a different address for notices to be given to that party. Any notice that is required to be given to the Employee shall, if the Employee is then deceased, be given to the person having any rights with respect to the Performance RSUs as determined pursuant to Section 10 of the Plan, in accordance with this Section 9. Any notice shall be deemed duly given when sent via email or when sent by certified mail (return receipt requested) and deposited (with postage prepaid) in a post office or branch post office regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service. .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: onto § 1981. I also agree that Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974), does not save the Kamehameha policy. Mancan involved a federal employment preference for persons of tribal ancestry that the Court upheld against a Fifth Amendment challenge because tribes, which are federally-recognized, are a political, rather than a racial, classification. 417 U.S. at 553-55, 94 S.Ct. 2474. However, the Court has since declined to extend Mancan to an Hawaii statutory scheme that restricted voting for certain state officials to those of Native Hawaiian ancestry. Rice, 528 U.S. at 518-23, 120 S.Ct. 1044. As no other basis appears for affirming, I would reverse. 1 . See also Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 107 S.Ct. 2022, 95 L.Ed.2d 582 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Neither party discusses whether the right Options: A. holding that a plaintiff could not assert a 1981 claim based on gender discrimination B. holding unequivocally that 1981 protects against racial discrimination in private employment C. holding that title vii precludes a claim under section 1981 for racial discrimination against a federal employee D. holding that 1981 protects against discrimination based on ancestry E. holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 1981 protects against discrimination based on ancestry
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 Loan Party and each of its Restricted Subsidiaries has filed all federal, state and local tax returns and other reports relating to taxes it is required by law to file, and has paid, or made provision for the payment of, all taxes, assessments, fees, levies and other governmental charges upon it, its income and Properties as and when such taxes, assessments, fees, levies and charges are due and payable, unless and to the extent any thereof are being actively contested in good faith and by appropriate proceedings, and each Loan Party and each of its Restricted Subsidiaries maintains reasonable reserves on its books therefor. The provision for taxes on the books of each Loan Party and each of its Restricted Subsidiaries is adequate for all years not closed by applicable statutes, and for the current fiscal year.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: under this Section is appeal-able in accordance with paragraph (A)(1) of Section 8 — 111.” 775 ILCS 5/7 — 101.1(A) (West 1996). It does not say that all orders entered under this section are final orders. Additionally, we note that the terms “final administrative decision” and “final order” are not defined in either the Administrative Review Law or the Act. See 735 ILCS 5/3 — 101 et seq. (West 1996); 775 ILCS 5/8 — 111 (West 1996). Because little guidance can be found in the relevant statutory sections, we believe jurisdiction hinges upon whether the order entered by the chief legal counsel was in substance a “final order,” or whether it was an interlocutory order not subject to judicial review. See Davis v. Human Rights Comm’n, 286 Ill. App. 3d 508, 514-15, 676 N.E.2d 315 (1997) (<HOLDING>); see also 775 ILCS 5/8 — 111(A)(1) (West 1996) Options: A. holding that where a temporary order is later made permanent the permanent order may be challenged B. holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order C. holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment D. holding an order that was interlocutory in form to be final in substance where the force and effect of the order was tantamount to a permanent injunction depriving complainant of a recognized property right E. holding preliminary injunction improper where it exceeded the relief sought and granted the same relief which would have been given in a final order of permanent injunction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding an order that was interlocutory in form to be final in substance where the force and effect of the order was tantamount to a permanent injunction depriving complainant of a recognized property right
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at 552. The primary issue in that case was whether the larceny of property from different owners at the same time and at the same place constituted one or several larcenies. Id. at 301, 312 S.E.2d at 552-53. However, the Court briefly addressed the method by which the State proved the value of the stolen items: [ The defendant] forcibly entered an apartment occupied by three roommates and took property belonging to each. The property was never recovered. At trial, each roommate estimated the value of the items taken. [The defendant] concedes the aggregate value of the property exceeded Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars, the statutory minimum to sustain a conviction of grand larceny. However, [the defendant] argues the value of the property taken from mo 32, 216 S.E.2d 758, 759-60 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Seaboard Coast Line, 262 S.C. at 46, 202 Options: A. holding that a district court was entitled to accept or reject testimony on the basis of the witnesses demeanor and candor or lack thereof and contradictions in the witnesses testimony B. holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine C. holding that the jury is the tribunal to determine the weight to be accorded the testimony of the witnesses and accept or reject the valuations placed thereupon D. holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony E. holding jury is entitled to accept the states version of the facts and reject appellants version or reject any of the witnesses testimony

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the jury is the tribunal to determine the weight to be accorded the testimony of the witnesses and accept or reject the valuations placed thereupon
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: reasons for evernote suspending or closing your account may include , without limitation : ( i ) breach or violation of these terms ( including the user guidelines ) or any separate agreement , ( ii ) an extended period of inactivity ( determined in evernote 's sole discretion ) , ( iii ) your nonpayment of any fees or other sums due evernote or any other party related to your use of the service , ( iv ) the discontinuance or material modification of the service ( or any part thereof ) or ( v ) unexpected technical or security issues or problems or extensive unsupported use .

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: YVMH argues that the regulation’s anti-competitive effects render it hybrid. Third, YVMH asserts that the State delegated market authority to hospitals with CON licenses because they have the ability to perpetuate their local monopolies. These arguments are unpersuasive. First, a regulation that enables private actors to enjoy a monopoly is not necessarily a hybrid restraint. Although allowing only certain hospitals to perform elective PCI’s might drive up cost by limiting supply and inhibiting competition, a regulation’s anti-competitive effects are insufficient to render it hybrid. Those anti-competitive effects are not the result of private action or collaboration given the State seal of approval, but are contemplated by the State’s licensing scheme. Cf. Costco, 522 F.3d at 890 (<HOLDING>). The cases YVMH cites for contrary authority Options: A. holding that a maximum vertical price maintenance scheme is not per se illegal B. holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract C. holding that the market price is understood to mean the current market price being paid for gas at the well where it is produced D. recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself E. holding that a scheme that enabled price collusion among private actors was hybrid

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a scheme that enabled price collusion among private actors was hybrid
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: Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753, 87 S.Ct. 1389, 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967) and Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992). MBNA claims these two cases “underpin[] all commerce clause nexus analysis.” (See Pet’r Br. at 12-16.) Consequently, the resolution of this case hinges on: 1) whether the holdings of Bellas Hess and Quill control, and, if not, 2) whether economic presence satisfies the substantial nexus requirement for purposes of Indiana’s FIT. Before 1967, the Supreme Court explained that when determining whether a nexus existed between a taxing State and a taxpayer, physical presence was not the sole factor. See, e.g., Nw. States Portland Cement v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450, 452, 79 S.Ct. 357, 3 L.Ed.2d 421 (1959) (<HOLDING>). Then, in 1967, the Supreme Court held that Options: A. holding that a state may tax the net income from the interstate operations of a foreign corporation provided the levy is not discriminatory and is properly apportioned to local activities within the taxing state forming sufficient nexus to support the same B. holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state C. holding that resident shareholder of s corporation is eligible for tax credit for taxes paid by corporation in another state and noting that this conclusion is consistent with the internal revenue code which provides that shareholders of an s corporation are entitled to a foreign tax credit for their share of foreign income tax paid by an s corporation D. holding that interest received by a foreign corporation on a tax refund from the united states was interest on an interestbearing obligation of a resident of the united states within income tax statute E. holding that net farm income when applied to a producer in the fishing industry means net income from all fishing activity not just that income from a particular commodity and further providing that the regulations make it reasonably clear that the determination of net fishing income is not to be made solely on the basis of tax return information if other information is relevant to determining the producers net income from all fishing sources

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a state may tax the net income from the interstate operations of a foreign corporation provided the levy is not discriminatory and is properly apportioned to local activities within the taxing state forming sufficient nexus to support the same
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: SED has filed all reports, schedules, forms, statements and other documents required to be filed by SED by applicable law and with the SED Trading Market for the twelve months preceding the date hereof (or such shorter period as SED was required by law or regulation to file such material) (the foregoing materials, including the exhibits thereto and documents incorporated by reference therein, being collectively referred to herein as the “ SGX Reports ”) on a timely basis or has received a valid extension of such time of filing and has filed any such SGX Reports prior to the expiration of any such extension. As of their respective dates, the SGX Reports complied in all material respects with the requirements of applicable law and the SED Trading Market, and none of the SGX Reports, when filed, contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The financial statements of SED included in the SGX Reports comply in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and applicable rules and regulations, including those of the SED Trading Market, with respect thereto as in effect at the time of filing. Such financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted international accounting principles applied on a consistent basis during the periods involved, except as may be otherwise specified in such financial statements or the notes thereto and except that unaudited financial statements may not contain all footnotes so required, and fairly present in all material respects the financial position of SED and its consolidated Subsidiaries as of and for the dates thereof and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods then ended, subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal, immaterial, year-end audit adjustments.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: 376 U.S. 201 84 S.Ct. 696 11 L.Ed.2d 650 Dion Tyrone DIAMOND, petitioner,v.STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 100. Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1963. February 24, 1964 James M. Nabrit, III, New York City, for petitioner. Ralph L. Roy, Baton Rouge, La., for respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. PER CURIAM. 1 The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Administrative Agent shall have received certified copies of the resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Borrower and each Subsidiary Guarantor approving the Loan Documents to which the Borrower or any such Subsidiary Guarantor, as the case may be, is or may become a party, and of all documents evidencing other necessary corporate action and governmental approvals, if any, with respect to the execution, delivery and performance by the Borrower or any such Subsidiary Guarantor of the Loan Documents to which it is or may become a party.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in the u.s. , under section 512 ( f ) of the dmca , any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability .

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: INS, 314 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir.2003); Sierra v. INS, 258 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir.2001). III. Jurisdiction Because removal proceedings were commenced after April 1, 1997, the permanent provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) apply. Tapia Garcia v. INS, 237 F.3d 1216, 1218 n. 2 (10th Cir.2001). A. Procedural default. We address first the government’s claim that Mr. Latu did not exhaust his remedy of seeking an appeal to the court of appeals on direct review, and, therefore, the district court lacked habeas jurisdiction over his case. The government cites Fifth Circuit cases that note, “under [IIRIRA’s] transitional rules, habeas jurisdiction lies to consider constitutional and statutory claims that cannot be h 3 (10th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). And as the government points out, the Fifth Options: A. recognizing collateral attack on void order B. holding district court was without jurisdiction to consider appellants collateral attack on an administrative suspension order that he had not timely appealed C. holding that when the district court dismissed rather than transferred a case not within its jurisdiction and a party appealed that dismissal the circuit court could consider only the propriety of the dismissal on appeal and determining that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction on appeal to consider the merits of the action D. holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petitioners collateral attack under 1331 E. recognizing bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over such a collateral attack

assistant: The best answer is B. holding district court was without jurisdiction to consider appellants collateral attack on an administrative suspension order that he had not timely appealed
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 does not appear from the record that any of the Moving Defendants were expressly listed as parties to any bargain with Wafra. Under the general rule of a contract analysis under Illinois law, this is compelling evidence that no enforceable bargain relationship exists between Wafra and any of the Moving Defendants, in their individual capacities. See Media Comm., Inc. v. Multimedia, Sign Up, Inc., No. 99 C 5009, 1999 WL 1212652, *2 (N.D.Ill.Dec.14,1999) (“Under Illinois law, when an officer signs a document and indicates next to his signature his corporate affiliation, then absent evidence of contrary intent in the document, the officer is not personally bound”) (internal citations omitted); see also Sparks Tune-Up Centers, Inc. v. Strong, 1994 WL 188211, *4-5 (N.D.Ill. May 12, 1994) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, because it is not clear from the Options: A. holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract B. holding enforceable forum selection clauses in arbitration agreements C. holding that the forum selection clause at issue encompassed both contract and tort claims D. holding that a forum selection clause should not be enforced where a consumer is told by a corporate agent to ignore boilerplate contract language containing a forum selection clause where there is a material difference in bargaining power and where the forum designated by the contract has little to do with the transaction and is gravely inconvenient for the parties and witnesses E. holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract
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 Title VII limitations period is an affirmative defense; rather, it referred to the filing period as something "like a statute of limitations” which "generally create affirmative defenses.” See Gordon, 675 F.2d at 360. Furthermore, Gordon's discussion came in response to the defendant’s (rejected) claim that the filing period was jurisdictional and did not purport to address, let alone decide, whether compliance with the filing deadline was condition precedent or an affirmative defense. 13 . Plaintiffs have not argued waiver, estoppel, or that the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply to cure their tardy filings, and based on the facts before us, we see nothing demanding their application. See, e.g., Biester v. Midwest Health Servs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1264, 1267 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 14 . Rather, each housekeeper who was told to Options: A. holding that equitable tolling of a statute of limitations may be triggered 1 where a plaintiff has actively pursued his judicial remedies by a filing a defective pleading during the statutory period or 2 where a plaintiff was induced or tricked by his adversarys misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass B. holding that equitable tolling applied where insurance company statements and conduct lulled plaintiff and his attorney into believing that plaintiffs uninsured motorist claim was properly filed C. recognizing equitable tolling in the title vii context where the plaintiff has been deceived lulled into inaction actively misled or has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his or her rights quotations and citations omitted D. holding equitable tolling appropriate where a party is prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his rights E. holding title vii subject to equitable tolling

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing equitable tolling in the title vii context where the plaintiff has been deceived lulled into inaction actively misled or has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his or her rights quotations and citations omitted