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: . Having reviewed Pacheco’s submissions, the Court concludes that the evidence Rivera presents either works against- or fails to substantiate Rivera’s claim that the prosecution promised Pacheco that he would be released on low bail, or guaranteed immunity from prosecution. At most, Rivera has established through Pacheco’s state court docket sheets that Pacheco was in fact released on substantially reduced bail within a week of testifying at Rivera’s trial. But the fact that Pacheco ultimately received consideration does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the prosecution had struck a deal with Pacheco before Pacheco testified, or that Pacheco’s release was other than the “consideration” for which Pacheco had hoped. Cf. Shabazz v. Artuz, 336 F.3d 154, 165 (2nd Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted); see also Bell v. Bell, 512 Options: A. holding that prosecutions duty to present all material evidence to the jury was not fulfilled when it became known the government failed to disclose an alleged promise of leniency made to its key witness in return for his testimony 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 the fact that a prosecutor afforded favorable treatment to a government witness standing alone does not establish the existence of an underlying promise of leniency in exchange for testimony D. holding prosecutions failure to disclose promise of leniency to witness provided in exchange for that witnesss testimony violated due process E. holding that 201 does not sweep so broadly as to prevent prosecutors from offering leniency to an individual in exchange for truthful testimony

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the fact that a prosecutor afforded favorable treatment to a government witness standing alone does not establish the existence of an underlying promise of leniency in exchange for testimony
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 MAJ Stone and CPT Seifert, and the wounding of fourteen other military officers. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for trial defense counsel to forego trying to convince the court-martial panel to the contrary, and to instead focus squarely on trying to persuade the panel members that Appellant’s acts were not premeditated. Accordingly, concessions such as the ones made by trial defense counsel that Appellant “threw those grenades” and “shot and killed Captain Seifert” were not unreasonable because they did not concede Appellant’s guilt to capital murder. Indeed, this type of approach is a well-recognized defense strategy in capital cases. See Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190-91, 125 S.Ct. 551, 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004); Lingar v. Bowersox, 176 F.3d 453, 458-59 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that trial defense Options: A. holding that concession of elements of seconddegree murder to challenge defendants mens rea for a capitalmurder conviction was not constitutionally deficient where overwhelming evidence pointed to defendant as perpetrator B. holding that an indictment that omitted the mens rea element was sufficient because it cited the applicable statutes which informed the defendant of the elements of the charged offenses C. holding that it was not error to allow the penalty phase jury to hear evidence that the defendants previous conviction of seconddegree murder was obtained pursuant to an indictment for firstdegree murder D. holding that a mens rea of unlawfully in the indictment was sufficient because the indictment referenced the applicable statute which required a reckless mens rea E. holding that conditional intent sufficient to satisfy specific intent mens rea for solicitation to commit murder offense

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that concession of elements of seconddegree murder to challenge defendants mens rea for a capitalmurder conviction was not constitutionally deficient where overwhelming evidence pointed to defendant as perpetrator
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: 378 U.S. 566 84 S.Ct. 1923 12 L.Ed.2d 1038 Caswell LATHAN, Jr.v.NEW YORK. No. 298, Misc. Supreme Court of the United States June 22, 1964 Murray A. Gordon, for petitioner. Isidore Dollinger and Bertram R. Gelfand, for respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Co rt of Appeals of New York. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774. 2 Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice CLARK, Mr., Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice STEWART dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Jackson v. Denno, supra.

assistant: 1
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 represents the agreement of Senior Lender and Subordinated Lender with respect to the subject matter hereof and there are no promises or representations by Senior Lender or Subordinated Lender relative to the subject matter hereof not reflected herein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: simply because it is a distinct conversation, occurring at a different time and place, and involving a different person. Contrary to the State’s argument, this court’s rejection of a “per capita” theory of solicitation in Varnell does not imply the adoption of a “per conversation” theory. Whether each conversation gives rise to a new unit of prosecution depends on whether the solicitation statute punishes an act or a course of conduct, an issue this court had no need to address in Varnell. “ ‘The test is whether the individual acts are prohibited, or the course of action which they constitute. If the former, then each act is punishable separately.... If the latter, there can be but one penalty.’ ” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 302, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932) (<HOLDING>) (alteration in original) (quoting 1 Francis Options: A. holding that state may charge separately for the same offense but the convictions for more than one of the offenses cannot stand B. holding that drug type and quantity do not constitute formal elements of separate and distinct offenses under section 84ibl C. holding that two unlawful sales of narcotics to the same purchaser on consecutive days constituted two offenses punishable separately D. holding that evidence supported finding of constructive possession of concealed narcotics in part because narcotics paraphernalia was found in residence E. holding that successive sales of narcotics constitute distinct offenses and may be separately prosecuted however close in time they occur

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that successive sales of narcotics constitute distinct offenses and may be separately prosecuted however close in time they occur
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party’s obligations under this Section 3.01 shall survive the resignation or replacement of the Administrative Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Lender or L/C Issuer, the termination of the Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all other Obligations.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: lot. The defendant did not take any unusual or suspicious actions while on the lot. The transaction took place at approximately 6:00 p.m. so the time of day raises no particular red flags. The defendant cites State v. Dye, 272 [S.W.3d] 879 and State v. Sch[mutz], 100 [S.W.3d] 876 in support of his position. Based on the holdings therein and on the facts of this case, the court does not believe that the officers had reasonable suspicion or articu[l]able facts to justify a stop of defendant’s vehicle. We disagree. The motion court is correct that Peery’s mere presence in the shopping center lot after hours was not a sufficient enough fact, standing alone, to give the police reasonable suspicion that he had engaged in, or was engaging in, illegal activity. Schmutz, 100 S.W.3d at 880 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Dye, 272 S.W.3d 879, 881 Options: A. holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes B. holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when confidential informant personally observed the vehicle provided a description of the vehicle and its direction detailed the basis for her suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in illegal activity and had previously given reliable information that led to the successful apprehension of individuals engaged in various criminal activity C. holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop D. holding that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle solely because the vehicle drove onto a lot after hours and then left in a hurry E. holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle solely because the vehicle drove onto a lot after hours and then left in a hurry
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 had contracted •with a potential creditor to make automated fraud-alert calls. Plaintiff responds that these decisions are distinguishable because plaintiff provided her cell phone number to Stompeez, not Quality. But Frausto, Baird, and Greene all stand for the proposition that a third-p.arty contractor performing services for the entity to which a plaintiff provided her cell phone number stands in the shoes of that entity in a consent analysis. See, e.g., Baird, 995 F.Supp.2d at 1106 (“No reasonable consumer could believe that consenting to be contacted by an airline company about a scheduled flight requires that all communications be made by direct employees of the airline, but never by any contractors performing services for the airline.”); Frausto, 2011 WL 3704249, at *2 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs second argument regarding consent Options: A. holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa B. holding that the defendant debt collector was the equivalent of the party to whom the plaintiff had provided her cell phone number for purposes of the tcpa C. holding that the act extends to claims by individuals against whom a debt collector has made purposeful targeted and directed attempts to collect a debt alleged to be owed by the plaintiffs D. holding that the notice requirement applies only to the first debt collector that communicates with the consumer E. holding that where the defendant obtained a nondefaulted debt under the mistaken belief that the debt was in default and where the defendants subsequent collection activities were based on that mistaken belief the defendant was a debt collector for purposes of the fdcpa

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the defendant debt collector was the equivalent of the party to whom the plaintiff had provided her cell phone number for purposes of the tcpa
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: Tenant, at Tenant’s expense, shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits and approvals for each of Tenant’s Monument Sign and Exterior Signs (collectively,” Tenant’s Signs ”). Tenant’s Signs must comply with all Requirements. Landlord, at no cost to Landlord, shall cooperate with Tenant to obtain all required permits and approvals for Tenant’s Signs. Tenant hereby acknowledges that, notwithstanding Landlord’s approval of Tenant’s Signs, Landlord has made no representations or warranties to Tenant with respect to the probability of obtaining such permits and approvals, nor the availability or location of the Exterior Signs, and the failure of Tenant to obtain such permits and approvals shall not delay the Lease Commencement Date or release Tenant from any obligations under this Lease.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original). 3 . During the attack victim’s uncle and cousin, who had arrived on the scene, called 911. 4 ., On March 15, 2016, the State filed a multiple bill of information pursuant to La. R.S. 15:529.1, charging Defendant as a quadruple offender based on a 2009 guilty plea to unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling; a 2002 guilty plea to illegal possession of a stolen automobile worth over $500; and a 1996 guilty plea to i l be sentenced to imprisonment for the fourth or subsequent felony for a determinate term of not less than the longest prescribed for a first conviction but in no event less than twenty years and not more than his natural life,” , (emphasis added). See State v. Shaw, 2006-2467pp. 23-24 (La. 11/27/07), 969 So.2d 1233, 1247 (<HOLDING>). 8 . As Judge Jenkins recognizes in her Options: A. holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony B. holding our habitual offender act does not limit enhancement to prior felony convictions within a certain time C. holding that all sentences for convictions on same date for a single course of criminal conduct are subject to enhancement under the habitual offender law overruling state ex rel porter v butler 573 so2d 1106 la 1991 and state v sherer 411 so2d 1050 la 1982 D. holding that it is permissible for a trial court to consider the same prior offenses for both enhancement of the instant offense and to establish habitual offender status E. holding that predicate crimes for which defendant received probation and adjudication could be considered for purposes of habitual offender enhancement

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that all sentences for convictions on same date for a single course of criminal conduct are subject to enhancement under the habitual offender law overruling state ex rel porter v butler 573 so2d 1106 la 1991 and state v sherer 411 so2d 1050 la 1982
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: Date (or any options or warrants issued by such Person with respect to its capital stock or other equity securities), or set aside any funds for any of the foregoing purposes, or shall have permitted any of its Subsidiaries to purchase or otherwise acquire for consideration any shares of any class of the capital stock or other equity securities of such Person outstanding on or after the Restatement Effective Closing Date (or any options or warrants issued by such Person with respect to its capital stock or other equity securities).

assistant: Closings
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: ("PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. Section 1997 e(a)")), the Court notes that an inmate's failure to exhaust may be justified where prison officials prevented him from filing or appealing a grievance. See, e.g., Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89, 103 (2d Cir.2011) ("A prisoner may invoke the doctrine of estoppel when defendants took affirmative action to prevent him from availing himself of grievance procedures.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Abney v. McGinnis, 380 F.3d 663, 667 (2d Cir.2004) (observing that an inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies may be justified where prison officials prevented him from complying with grievance procedures or “fail[ed] to timely advance the inmate’s grievance”); Ferguson v. Bizzario, No. 09-CV-8106, 2010 WL 4227298, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2010) (<HOLDING>); but see Rosado v. Fessetto, No. 09-CV-67, Options: A. holding that trial court may modify sentence on the same day as the assessment of the initial sentence and before the court adjourns for the day B. holding sua sponte dismissal of civil rights complaint was error where complaint was treated as habeas corpus petition and dismissed on nonexhaustion grounds although nonexhaustion was waivable defense and not jurisdictional C. holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing D. holding the plaintiffs allegation that correction officers either prevented or discouraged him from filing his complaint on the same day the event occurred raises estoppel as a second potential excuse for nonexhaustion E. holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the plaintiffs allegation that correction officers either prevented or discouraged him from filing his complaint on the same day the event occurred raises estoppel as a second potential excuse for nonexhaustion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: F.3d at 1071. 24 . Consistent with the framework outlined above, two clearly delineated categories of "initial transferee" cases have emerged. 5 Collier on Bankmptcy § 550.02[4][a] (15th ed.2007). In one line of cases, the recipient of funds is not deemed to be an initial transferee because it simply acts as an uninterested agent between the transferor and another entity — these are the "mere conduit” cases. See, e.g., In re Finley, 130 F.3d at 59; In re Chase & Sanborn Coip., 848 F.2d at 1200; Bonded, 838 F.2d at 893. In the other, the recipient is deemed to be an initial transferee because it obtains a complete ability to do what it wishes with the funds — these are the dominion and control cases. See, e.g., Taunt v. Hurtado (In re Jon Rey Hurtado), 342 F.3d 528, 535 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 25 . It could be posited that the third party Options: A. holding that a trustee is not required to avoid the initial transfer from the initial transferee before seeking to avoid it and recover from subsequent transferees and noting that this conclusion is consistent with case law that has disallowed automatic recovery from a subsequent transferee following the avoidance of an initial transfer through a stipulated judgment or default when the transferee had not been a party to the underlying avoidance proceeding B. holding that a trustee may settle with an initial transferee and still pursue recovery against a subsequent transferee but notwithstanding the trustee will still be required to prove that the transfers were fraudulent and improper in connection with its suit against the subsequent transferee because the trustees settlement with the initial transferee did not involve any determination on the merits as to the initial transfers and in this way the subsequent transferee will be afforded its due process rights to contest the avoidability of these initial transfers C. holding that agent of corporation who used corporate funds to secure personal loan was initial transferee D. holding a party to be an initial transferee because she was given legal title to the funds E. holding that because the recipient of funds had a contractual obligation to immediately transfer them he was not an initial transferee under 550 even though the funds were eventually used to purchase stock in his name

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a party to be an initial transferee because she was given legal title to the funds
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: also Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to hear testimony concerning the extraneous offense (see point of error number one), we find that counsel was not ineffective for his failure to object at times where the same or similar testimony was presented to the jury. That is, we find that there is no deficiency in counsel’s failure to convince the trial court in the first instance to exclude relevant testimony regarding appellant’s motive and thus subsequently failed to object when the same or similar testimony was brought forward. See Holland v. State, 761 S.W.2d 307, 318-319 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (<HOLDING>); Bridge, 726 S.W.2d at 566 (because trial Options: A. holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation B. holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify C. holding that counsel was under no obligation to do what would amount to a futile act D. holding that trial counsel will not be convicted of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to engage in futile acts E. holding that the failure to raise a futile issue does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that counsel was under no obligation to do what would amount to a futile act
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 a claim may satisfy the requirements of any number of government acts. Rather, the inquiry is, regardless of which other government acts the claim complies with, did the claim comply with the presentment requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) of the FTCA. This Court holds that it did. One of the presentment requirements of section 2675(a) is that the administrative claim state a sum certain for damages. Melo v. United States, 505 F.2d 1026, 1029 (8th Cir failed to use the words “tort” or “negligence” or that FGS failed to invoke the FTCA in its January administrative claim as long as the claim otherwise informed the BIA of the injury, the circumstances of that injury, and the amount of damages. See Santiago-Ramirez v. Secretary of Dep’t of Defense, 984 F.2d 16, 19-20 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Satisfaction of the presentment requirements Options: A. holding that the independent contractor exception in the ftca would not insulate the government from the contractors negligence if the duty was nondelegable under florida law B. holding that section 2675a was satisfied by an administrative claim which identified the claimant the date of the incident the location of the incident the government agency involved and the type of injury alleged even if the claim did not specifically mention the ftca negligence or tort C. holding that the plaintiffs claim against the united states for negligence was not a tort claim within the ftca where it was founded upon an alleged failure to perform explicit or implicit contractual obligations D. holding that the government is liable under the ftca in the same respect as a private person under the law of the place where the act occurred E. holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that section 2675a was satisfied by an administrative claim which identified the claimant the date of the incident the location of the incident the government agency involved and the type of injury alleged even if the claim did not specifically mention the ftca negligence or tort
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: exists as to this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, it is our obligation to raise it, sua sponte, even though, as here, no party has asked us to consider it.”) (citation and alterations omitted). 36 . Henderson v. Shinseki, -U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1203, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011). 37 . See Gatewood v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth., 82 A.3d 41, 48 (D.C.2013) (explaining that claims-processing rules are "typically promulgated by a decision-making body” and jurisdictional rules are "most often legislative enactments”); id. at 46 ("Jurisdictional rules may be raised at any point in the proceedings and are not subject to waiver, however late they are invoked S. 312, 316, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988)); Vines v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co., 935 A.2d 1078, 1083 (D.C.2007) (<HOLDING>). 43 . Gonzalez v. Thaler, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that appellant complied with rule 3as requirement to designate the judgment or order appealed where it was clear from the face of the notice of appeal which judgment appellant sought to appeal B. holding that the failure to join all the defendants in a removal petition is not a jurisdictional defect C. holding that failure to designate the judgment or order being appealed is a jurisdictional defect D. holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process E. holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that failure to designate the judgment or order being appealed is a jurisdictional defect
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: Terms not defined in this Agreement shall have the meanings assigned thereto in Appendix A to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of the date hereof (as from time to time amended, supplemented or otherwise modified and in effect, the “ Sale and Servicing Agreement ”) among the Purchaser, as seller, Honda Auto Receivables 2016-3 Owner Trust, as Issuer, and the RPA Seller, as Servicer and Sponsor.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice or communication under this Agreement must be in writing and given by (i) deposit in the United States mail, addressed to the party to be notified, postage prepaid and registered or certified with return receipt requested, (ii) delivery in person or by courier service providing evidence of delivery, or (iii) electronic transmission with evidence of delivery. Each notice or communication that is mailed, delivered, or transmitted in the manner described above shall be deemed sufficiently given, served, sent, and received, in the case of mailed notices, on the third business day following the date on which it is mailed and, in the case of notices delivered by courier service, hand delivery, or electronic transmission, at such time as it is delivered to the addressee (with the delivery receipt or the affidavit of the courier) or at such time as delivery is refused by the addressee upon presentation. Any party may change its address for notice at any time and from time to time by written notice to the other parties hereto, and such change of address shall become effective thirty (30) days after delivery of such notice as provided in this Section 5.1.

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: 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006). These conditions, though “stringent,” see id., are satisfied in this case. As Ameziane concedes, the first requirement is satisfied because the district court’s order conclusively determined that [redacted] would not be protected under the Protective Order. Second, this issue is entirely separate from the merits of Ameziane’s habeas action. The public disclosure of [redacted] has no relevance to the underlying question on the merits, i.e., whether he has been lawfully detained. And given the foreign relations and national security concerns raised in the [redacted] Declaration, we have no difficulty finding this issue sufficiently “important” to warrant immediate appellate review. See Al Odah v. United States, 559 F.3d 539, 543-44 (D.C.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the district court’s order would be Options: A. holding that section 236e does not strip the court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of petitioners habeas corpus petition B. holding that an order denying compensation under the federal criminal justice act for services performed before a state clemency board by counsel appointed to represent a state prisoner was final and appealable despite the fact that the order was separate from the merits of the habeas corpus proceeding C. holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim D. holding that order mandating disclosure of classified information to habeas petitioners counsel was an important issue entirely separate from the merits of this case E. holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that order mandating disclosure of classified information to habeas petitioners counsel was an important issue entirely separate from the merits of this case
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 CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WITHOUT REGARD TO CONFLICTS OF LAW PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If (a) any Event of Default described in Sections 10.1(e), (f) or (g) shall occur, the Commitments shall automatically terminate and the outstanding unpaid principal balance of the Notes, the accrued interest thereon and all other obligations of the Borrowers to the Banks and the Agent under the Loan Documents shall automatically become immediately due and payable; or (b) any other Event of Default shall occur and be continuing, then the Agent may take any or all of the following actions (and shall take any or all of the following actions on direction of the Required Banks): (i) declare the Commitments terminated, whereupon the Commitments shall terminate, (ii) declare that the outstanding unpaid principal balance of the Notes, the accrued and unpaid interest thereon and all other obligations of the Borrowers to the Banks and the Agent under the Loan Documents to be forthwith due and payable, whereupon the Notes, all accrued and unpaid interest thereon and all such obligations shall immediately become due and payable, in each case without demand or notice of any kind, all of which are hereby expressly waived, anything in this Agreement or in the Notes to the contrary notwithstanding, (iii) exercise all rights and remedies under any other instrument, document or agreement between any Borrower and the Agent or the Banks, and (iv) enforce all rights and remedies under any applicable law.

assistant: Remedies
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 of the provisions of this Second Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof. Except as specifically provided for in this Second Amendment, the terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this Second Amendment and the Agreement with respect to the period of time from and after the date hereof, the terms of this Second Amendment shall prevail and govern.

assistant: Effectiveness
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 Lenders shall have received (a) audited balance sheets for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2013, September 30, 2012 and September 30, 2011 and related statements of income and comprehensive income and statements of cash flows related to the Borrower for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2013, September 30, 2012 and September 30, 2011 and (b) unaudited balance sheets and related statements of income and comprehensive income and statement of cash flows related to the Borrower for the fiscal quarters ended December 31, 2013, March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment may be executed in counterparts (and by different parties hereto in different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page to this Amendment by telecopier or other electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Amendment.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall by [8:30 a.m.] EST (a) on the first Business Day after this Agreement has been executed, issue a press release disclosing the material terms of the transactions contemplated hereby and (b) within four (4) Business Days after this Agreement has been executed, file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC (the “ 8-K Filing ”), including the Transaction Documents as exhibits thereto. From and after the issuance of such press release and the 8-K Filing, the Company shall have publicly disclosed all material, non-public information delivered to any of the Subscribers by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any of their respective officers, directors, employees or agents. The Company and those Subscribers investing the majority of the Aggregate Purchase Price (" Majority Subscribers ") shall consult with each other in issuing any press releases with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby, and no Subscriber shall issue any such press release or otherwise make any such public statement without the prior consent of the Company, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall not publicly disclose the name of any Subscriber, or include the name of any Subscriber in any filing with the SEC or any regulatory agency, without the prior written consent of such Subscriber, except to the extent such disclosure is required by law, in which case the Company shall provide the Subscribers with prior notice of such disclosure. The Company understands that any such disclosure shall cause irreparable harm and each Subscriber shall be entitled to injunctive relief and liquidated damages in connection therewith.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: due process mandatory maximum cap on punitive damages of $2,500.00 for all cases. While Mendez creates a daunting task for plaintiffs to tackle in nominal damages cases where a large punitive damage amount is awarded, it does not impose a limit that is an across-the-board proxy for an individualized assessment of the BMW factors. First, Mendez is not a discrimination case, but a civil rights case. Sécond, it is not a case subject to a statutory cap on punitive damages, in which the cap itself may inform the excessiveness analysis. Rather, I read the appellate court’s affirmance of the district court’s remittitur of the punitive damages award to a 2,500:1 ratio in Mendez to mean nothing more than that a 2,500:1 ratio was not excessive in that case. See Mendez, 540 F.3d at 1122-23 (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, the fact that the jury’s punitive Options: A. holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict B. holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court C. holding that in light of the bmw guideposts the jurys award was unconstitutionally excessive in violation of due process and therefore properly remitted by the district court D. holding excessive force in public school context is a violation of substantive due process guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment E. holding portions of the coercion of public servant or voter statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment and in violation of the separation of powers

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that in light of the bmw guideposts the jurys award was unconstitutionally excessive in violation of due process and therefore properly remitted by the district court
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: 516 U.S. 297116 S.Ct. 769133 L.Ed.2d 721 Robert ATTWOODv.Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department Of Corrections. No. 95-6710. Supreme Court of the United States Jan. 22, 1996. PER CURIAM. 1 Pro se petitioner Robert Attwood requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Attwood is allowed until February 12, 1996, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court's Rul e 33. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Attwood in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33. 2 Attwood has abused this Court's certiorari process. In November 1995, we twice invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Attwood in forma pauperis status. See Attwood v. Smith and Attwood v. Palm Beach Post, 516 U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 416, 133 L.Ed.2d 334. At that time, Attwood had filed seven petitions in this Court during the prior year, and he has filed two since. All were patently frivolous and were denied without recorded dissent. 3 We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992). Attwood's abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order will not prevent Attwood from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed against him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our certiorari process. 4 It is so ordered. 5 Justice STEVENS, dissenting. 6 Because experience with the administration of orders like the one the Court is entering in this case today has merely reinforced my conviction that our "limited resources" would be used more effectively by simply denying petitions that are manifestly frivolous, I respectfully dissent. Perhaps one day reflection will persuade my colleagues to return to "the great tradition of open access that characterized the Court's history prior to its unprecedented decisions in In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 [109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158] (1989) (per curiam), and In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 [111 S.Ct. 596, 112 L.Ed.2d 599] (1991) (per curiam)." See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 4, 113 S.Ct. 397, 398, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

assistant: 2
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: rebuttal closing argument that the jurors should not believe the victim because he was following “the law of the streets.... ” Lee, 405 Md. at 156, 950 A.2d at 130. We held that defense counsel’s argument regarding the veracity of the victim’s testimony was not improper, and, therefore, the prosecutor’s “law of the streets” argument could not be justified under the “invited response” doctrine. Lee, 405 Md. at 170, 950 A.2d at 138; see also Johnson v. State, 325 Md. 511, 519, 601 A.2d 1093, 1097 (1992) (determining that the prosecutor’s improper remarks in rebuttal closing argument could not be justified because defense counsel’s closing argument was not improper). In the instant case, like in Lee, defense counsel’s closing argument was insufficient to invoke the “invited 4, 33 (2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 360 Md. 276, 757 A.2d 811 Options: A. holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify B. holding the state cannot comment on a defendants failure to produce evidence to refute an element of the crime because doing so could erroneously lead the jury to believe that the defendant had the burden of introducing evidence C. holding that it was permissible for prosecutor to comment on the general failure of the defense to produce any evidence D. recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence E. holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence
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: By signing this Agreement, the Parties agree that any controversy or claim arising will be resolved by binding arbitration. Binding arbitration will be conducted by a panel of three arbitrators, selected from the American Arbitration Association National Panel of Commercial Arbitrators. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator’s decision will be final and non-appealable and may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. Unless and until the arbitrators decide that one Party is to pay for all (or a share) of the arbitrators’ fees and expenses, both Parties shall share equally in the payment of the arbitrators’ fees as and when billed by the arbitrators. The arbitration will be held in California, unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to another place.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, including the exhibits hereto, taken together with any other documents delivered in connection with this Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof. This Agreement is not intended to confer upon any Person other than the parties hereto any rights or remedies.

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 provisions of this Agreement shall be severable in the event that any of the provisions hereof (including any portion thereof) are held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, void or otherwise unenforceable, and the remaining provisions shall remain enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. Upon such determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible in a mutually acceptable manner in order that the transactions contemplated hereby be consummated as originally contemplated to the extent possible.

assistant: Severability