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: as an “an unlawful act under subsection (a) of section 1311 of this title.” See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f)(1). In turn, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) provides that “the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.” The term “the discharge of any pollutant” is defined as the “addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from a point source,” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12), while “navigable waters” is defined as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). Congress intended the latter term to be given “the broadest constitutional interpretation.” United States v. Rivera Torres, 826 F.2d 151, 154 (1st Cir.1987) (quoting Conference Report on Section 2770, reprinted in 1 A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 178) (<HOLDING>). Yet, it is unclear whether or not a river Options: A. holding that regulations pur porting to reach wetlands whose degradation or destruction could affect interstate or foreign commerce were beyond statutory authorization because they would include intrastate waters that need have nothing to do with navigable or interstate waters B. holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters C. holding that a worker injured on actual navigable waters in the course of employment is covered under the lhwca D. holding that federal maritime law and not state law applies to all actions for wrongful death in navigable state waters E. holding that the evident breadth of congressional coneern for protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems supported the army corps of engineers interpretation of waters of the united states to encompass wetlands adjacent to waters as more conventionally defined

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters
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: Enter into any arrangement with any Person providing for the leasing by the Borrower or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries of real or personal Property which is to be sold or transferred by the Borrower or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries (a) to such Person or (b) to any other Person to whom funds have been or are to be advanced by such Person on the security of such Property or rental obligations of the Borrower or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries, except for (i) any such arrangement entered into in the ordinary course of business of the Borrower or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries, (ii) sales or transfers by the Borrower or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries to any Loan Party, (iii) sales or transfers by any Non-Guarantor Subsidiary to any other Non-Guarantor Subsidiary that is a Restricted Subsidiary and (iv) any such arrangement to the extent that the Fair Market Value of such Property does not exceed the greater of (i) $100,000,000 and (ii) 3.0% of Consolidated Total Assets at the time of such event, in the aggregate for all such arrangements.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Administrative Agent and the Lenders (and their respective affiliates, officers, directors, attorneys, agents and employees) from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses (including attorneys' fees or disbursements) of any kind or nature whatsoever that may be imposed on, incurred by or asserted against the Administrative Agent or any Lender in connection with any investigative, administrative or judicial proceeding (whether or not such Lender or the Administrative Agent shall be designated a party thereto) or any other claim by any Person relating to or arising out of any Loan Document or any actual or proposed use of proceeds of the Loans or any of the Obligations, or any activities of any Company or its Affiliates; provided that no Lender nor the Administrative Agent shall have the right to be indemnified under this Section 11.6 for its own gross negligence or willful misconduct, as determined by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. All obligations provided for in this Section 11.6 shall survive any termination of this Agreement.

assistant: Indemnifications
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 the failure of the City to award promotions to the plaintiffs. Only one racist comment was mentioned— the “rug head” remark — and that comment was directly tied to the failure to promote one of the plaintiffs’ black colleagues. The plaintiffs claim to have verbally notified EEOC officials about other facts that support their hostile-work-environment claim, but the record contains no evidence beyond bald, nonspecific assertions that they did so. No decision in this circuit has held that EEOC charges regarding discrete acts of discrimination are alone sufficient to put the EEOC on notice of a hostile-work-environment claim. Several unpublished decisions of this court have in fact held to the contrary. See, e.g., Brown v. City of Cleveland, 294 Fed.Appx. 226, 234-35 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Scott v. Eastman Chem. Co., 275 Fed.Appx. Options: A. holding that because the amendment added a new substantive theory which is fundamentally distinct from the original race discrimination charge it did not relate to or grow out of the plaintiffs original eeoc charge B. holding that claimant exhausted administrative remedies only as to the complaints made in the original charge and factually related claims that reasonably could be expected to grow out of the administrative investigation of that charge C. holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive D. holding that an eeoc investigation of a hostile work environment could not reasonably be expected to grow out of a charge describing the denials of a promotion and a handicapped parking space E. recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an eeoc investigation of a hostile work environment could not reasonably be expected to grow out of a charge describing the denials of a promotion and a handicapped parking space
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 misconduct on the part of the DEA, which falls under Rule 60(b)(3). Reed did not file his motion within one year after the 1992 order was entered, and accordingly, the motion was untimely. Moreover, Reed presented no new facts, arguments, or evidence to explain why he was unable to directly appeal the 1992 order or to justify the 13-year delay between the 1992 order and the 2005 Rule 60(b) motion. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. AFFIRMED. 1 . Given our resolution of the Rule 60(b) issue, we discern no abuse of the district court’s discretion in its denial of Reed's Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. Cf. Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). 2 . In construing Reed's arguments, we have Options: A. holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion B. holding that we will not overturn a denial of a rule 59 motion absent an abuse of discretion C. holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion D. holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion E. holding that when plaintiffs argue an inconsistent jury verdict this court will not disturb the trial courts denial of a motion for a new trial absent a showing of abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that we will not overturn a denial of a rule 59 motion absent an abuse of discretion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: supports them. Harkins v. Greenville County, 340 S.C. 606, 621, 533 S.E.2d 886, 893 (2000). Law/Analysis In the first question presented for our review, Appellant alleges that the master-in-equity erred in refusing to declare the magistrate’s judgment void ab initio for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We disagree, and hold that Appellant may not seek relief from the prior unappealed order of the circuit court because the order has become the law of the case. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court. C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 991 (2008); see also Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 576 S.E.2d 156 (2003) (<HOLDING>); In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370 n. 2, 468 S.E.2d Options: A. holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion lacked specificity B. holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion was not made in good faith C. holding that a family court judge could not overrule the prior unappealed order of another family court judge because it had become law of thecase D. holding that in absence of changed circumstances and except there be some other most cogent reason when judge makes or denies interlocutory order and when appeal lies as of right from such order it should not be reconsidered even by judge who made the order much less by another judge E. holding that the fact that a judge had ruled against the defendant is not a basis for finding the judge prejudiced

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a family court judge could not overrule the prior unappealed order of another family court judge because it had become law of thecase
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: 1. The confidential, proprietary and trade secret information of the Disclosing Party (hereinafter "Confidential Information") provided hereunder is any and all information, in whatever form (including electronic data) that will be disclosed to facilitate the potential transaction of business (related to the provision of SAP Services to HRM) between the Parties, including, but not limited to, portions or parts of the November 1, 2012 Agreement (including any schedules or appendices) between the Province of Nova Scotia and IBM, each Party's disclosure of intellectual property, techniques, sketches, drawings, models, inventions, know-how, processes, apparatus, equipment, algorithms, software programs, software source documents, and formulae related to the current, future and proposed products, documents and services, research, experimental work, development, design details and specifications, engineering, financial information, procurement requirements, purchasing, manufacturing, licensing, sales or service customer lists, business forecasts, sales and merchandizing, and marketing plans and information.

assistant: No
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: As a regular, full-time, U.S. based exempt employee of SWM, you will be eligible for participation, as of the first of the month following one full month of employment after the Start Date, in a comprehensive benefits package that includes medical, dental, group life, accidental death, short and long-term disability insurance plans; and a 401(k) savings plan with a maximum company match of 6% of earnings (60% match on your contributions up to 10% of base salary and AIP, subject to IRS limits). Commencing 30 days after the Start Date, you will be enrolled in the SWM Executive Supplemental Long Term Disability policy. You are also eligible to participate in the Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan #2 and will be reimbursed in an amount not to exceed $1,500 annually for tax preparation services.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Giacumbo, the letter, distributed to the members of Local 843, effectively endorsed Mr. Williams, Mr. Giacumbo’s opponent. As for surrounding circumstances, Defendant claims that Mr. Potter drafted the letter in response to the “New Teamsters’ ” newsletter, which contained serious allegations connecting Mr. Potter to organized crime. Even if Mr. Potter’s motive of responding to the “New Teamsters’ ” allegations were reasonable, it cannot justify the scope of the attack and criticism against Mr. Giaeumbo. As noted in the discussion of whether the Potter letter falls within § 401(g)’s safe harbor, supra, the letter went far beyond factually refuting the allegations of the “New Teamsters”. Instead, Mr. Potter’s letter co rkers Intern. of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 547 F.2d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>), Donovan v. National Alliance of Postal and Options: A. holding that parole boards do not have to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment B. holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation C. holding that complaints regarding violation of employer policies unrelated to impermissible discrimination do not fall within the scope of title vii and therefore do not qualify for protection under the statute D. holding that liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under 1983 where at best the plaintiff has merely claimed that the appellants were aware of alleged violation but did not take appropriate action E. holding that best of motives do not excuse 401g violation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that best of motives do not excuse 401g violation
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 the services of an attorney are required by any Party to secure the performance of this Agreement or otherwise upon the breach or default of another Party to this Agreement, or if any judicial remedy or arbitration is necessary to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement or the rights and duties of any person in relation thereto, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses, in addition to any other relief to which such Party may be entitled.

assistant: Costs
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: (B) not impeded by diverse, nonuniform, and confusing labeling and advertising regulations.” Id. Congress sought to protect “commerce and the national economy” specifically from the effect of “diverse, nonuniform and confusing cigarette labeling and advertising” rules, id., not from more stringent regulation generally. See Altria Grp., 555 U.S. at 78-79, 129 S.Ct. 538 (explaining that the “Act’s pre-emption provisions promote its second purpose” by preventing States from “enforcing rules that are based on an assumption that the federal warnings are inadequate”); Reilly, 533 U.S. at 542-43, 121 S.Ct. 2404 (paraphrasing the second purpose as “to protect the national economy from interference due to diverse, nonuniform, and confusing cigarette labeling and a F.3d 594, 600 (8th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>); Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Options: A. holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer B. holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims C. holding that the labeling act did not preempt negligent and wanton design and manufacture claims against cigarette manufacturer D. holding that federal law did not preempt commonlaw fraud claim against cigarette manufacturer based on advertising of light cigarettes E. holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt state law damages actions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer
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: in a single limits policy covering multiple vehicles as to sums required to be provided by statute. Id. at 431, 475 S.E.2d at 775. The supreme court reversed the court of appeals and held that a policy provision prohibiting stacking of liability coverage is valid because “[liability coverage, ... while statutorily required, is limited to the particular vehicle for which it is purchased.” Ruppe v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 329 S.C. 402, 406, 496 S.E.2d 631, 633 (1998). The Ruppe case is not dispositive in this case, however, because we determined that no Class I insured was involved in the accident. Inasmuch as the appellants were Class II insureds under the garage policy, none were entitled to stack. Fireman’s Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 295 S.C. 538, 370 S.E.2d 85 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Therefore the order of the circuit court is Options: A. holding that no class member may opt out of a rule 23b1 class action B. recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members C. holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent D. holding that although class i insureds may stack coverage class ii insureds may not E. holding that no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although class i insureds may stack coverage class ii insureds may not
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: possession” by a convicted felon. In doing so, the court relied upon decisions from the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits, which have held that placing a convicted felon’s fire arms “in the possession of a [third party] in trust” necessarily constitutes constructive possession by the felon. United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971, 977 (11th Cir.2005); see United States v. Felici, 208 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir.2000). By contrast, the Seventh Circuit and, to a more limited extent, the Fifth Circuit have suggested that a convicted felon may devise an arrangement in which he recovers the value of the seized firearms without contravening Section 922(g)(1). United States v. Miller, 588 F.3d 418, 419-20 (7th Cir.2009); see also Cooper v. City of Greenwood, 904 F.2d 302, 305-06 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). On balance, we are persuaded by the Seventh Options: A. holding that a convicted felon is not entitled to have firearms returned held in trust or sold for his profit B. holding that a convicted felon may sue a municipal government to recover the value of seized firearms that he owned C. holding that a convicted felon is not entitled to return of firearms or to have firearms held in trust by third party D. holding the defendant was a convicted felon within the purview of the federal statute prohibiting the receiving and possession of firearms by a convicted felon where the defendants prior conviction was based on an idaho state probated sentence E. holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a convicted felon may sue a municipal government to recover the value of seized firearms that he owned
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: the user also warrants that he/she is not located in a country that is subject to a u.s. government embargo , or that has been designated by the u.s. government as a `` terrorist supporting '' country , and that he/she is not listed on any u.s. government list of prohibited or restricted parties .

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: other than delay. The same is true of Mr. Leland’s contention that he was not adequately kept informed by his attorney as the case progressed, that Mr. Largay failed to undertake requested actions, and that he relied too heavily on the prospect of a dramatic change in the legal landscape following Blakely up to Booker. But, there is no factual specificity to any of these arguments. Mr. Leland nowhere suggests what an evidentiary hearing would reveal to justify the relief he has requested. If the § 2255 petitioner wishes an evidentiary hearing, he must at a minimum present a plausible basis to conclude that the evidence would lead to a different result. Here, Mr. Leland has asserted no factual basis for such a conclusion. Cf. Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48, 61 (1st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Options: A. holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on 2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit B. holding that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing because the petitioners allegations were not implausible and a final determination of the merits of petitioners claim would be best served by greater development of the facts many of which the government disputes C. holding that review under 2254d1 is limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits rejecting the petitioners claim that the federal habeas court could consider evidence introduced in an evidentiary hearing D. holding that the state courts rejection of the petitioners ineffective assistance of counsel claim was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence before the state court E. holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing because the petitioners allegations were not implausible and a final determination of the merits of petitioners claim would be best served by greater development of the facts many of which the government disputes
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: There is no legal, administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding, suit, claim or action of any nature, or investigation, review, or audit of any kind, or any judgment, decree, decision, injunction, writ, or order pending, noticed, scheduled, or, to the knowledge of DarkStar and Bengio, threatened or contemplated by or against or involving DarkStar, including but not limited to any letter asserting a claim of any nature whatsoever against DarkStar.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 2, 1997, within one and one-half hours of each other would count as two separate convictions. However, Bradley, would lead one to believe that these two crimes would count as separate transactions, making this Appellant’s fourth strike. Moreover, even if we were to consider the two February crimes to be one previous transaction, the 1996 criminal event is clearly separate and Appellant would be on his third strike. 2 . A secondary problem with the case sub judi-ce is that the penalty is facially harsh. A twenty-five year mandatory minimum for a seemingly minor offense of burglary of $76.00 and a brassiere is extreme. However, no challenge is before us concerning the constitutionality of the punishment. See Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (<HOLDING>) (citing Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 100 Options: A. holding that the four year sentence imposed by the district court was appropriate as it was comparable to the five year sentence for perjury or obstruction of justice B. holding fifteen year hfo mandatory minimum sentences on the three robbery convictions were required to run concurrently with the twentyfive year nonhfo mandatory minimum on the murder sentence C. holding in a five to four decision that a twentyfive year minimum sentence for stealing three golf clubs pursuant to californias threestrikes law did not violate the eighth amendment and that any criticism for the statute is properly directed at the legislature D. holding that a sentence of 25 years to life imposed for felony grand theft under californias threestrikes law did not violate the eighth amendment E. holding that the fifteen year minimum sentence imposed under section 924e does not violate the eighth amendment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding in a five to four decision that a twentyfive year minimum sentence for stealing three golf clubs pursuant to californias threestrikes law did not violate the eighth amendment and that any criticism for the statute is properly directed at the legislature
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 [non-member spouse] nor an inequitable deprivation of his or her rights. {¶ 40} Based upon the above reasoning, numerous Ohio courts have rejected the argument that the coverture fraction illegally or unfairly awards the nonmember spouse with pension benefits earned after the divorce. See, e.g., Sayson at ¶ 66-68 (finding it fair and equitable to award a former spouse her share of the increased future value of a pension earned when the member spouse served 15 years of active military duty during the marriage); Pruitt, 2005-Ohio-4424, at ¶ 58 (rejecting the member spouse’s argument that use of the coverture fraction improperly deprived him of benefits he earned subsequent to the divorce); DiFrangia v. DiFrangia, 11th Dist. No. 2003-T-0004, 2003-Ohio-6090, 2003 WL 22697977, ¶ 20-23 (<HOLDING>); Peters v. Peters (Feb. 23, 2001), 2d Dist. Options: A. recognizing that any delay in the disposition of a case concerning the termination of parental rights could result in potential detriment to the child B. holding that the receiver of assets not the subsequent purchaser of the assets retained all liabilities not specifically enumerated in a similar purchase and assumption agreement C. holding that application of the coverture fraction did not result in a future award of nonmarital assets earned subsequent to the termination of the marriage D. holding that a termination of benefits must go handinhand with a termination of the liability of an employer E. holding that interim award was final and confirmable where award required immediate payment and did not bear on subsequent arbitration proceedings

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that application of the coverture fraction did not result in a future award of nonmarital assets earned subsequent to the termination of the marriage
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: withstand. In granting summary judgment because Bispo failed to produce evidence of risk, the district court misapplied California law. Even where a plaintiff never so much as mentions “risk-benefit,” a prima facie showing of injury and causation shifts the burden to the defendant. McCabe v. American Honda Motor Co., 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1127, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 (Cal.Ct.App.2002). In any event, the district court’s determination that Bispo produced no evidence of risk was clearly incorrect. The accident itself, caused by the failure of the rubber seal and resulting in severe injury, is evidence of risk. Moreover, Robertshaw did not show any benefits of its valve design. See Bernal v. Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corp., 221 Cal.App.3d 1326, 1335, 272 Cal.Rptr. 41 (Cal.Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). Robertshaw cannot carry its burden of showing Options: A. holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury B. holding that the plaintiff bears the burden to show that the defendant acted with intent to deceive C. holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review D. holding that the defendant not the plaintiff bears the burden with regard to feasible alternative designs E. holding that the plaintiff bears the burden when relying on the discovery rule

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the defendant not the plaintiff bears the burden with regard to feasible alternative designs
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: necessary jurisdictional facts. S.R.P. ex rel. Abunabba v. United States, 676 F.3d 329, 344-45 (3d.Cir.2012). The government argues that the discretionary function exception bars the plaintiffs’ claims because they arose from the FBI’s investigation, which the Third Circuit has deemed a discretionary activity. See Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3d Cir.1986) (noting that “Congress did not intend to provide for judicial review of the quality of investigative efforts”). In response, the plaintiffs argue that they are not basing their claims on the FBI’s investigation, but on their entry and search, which was done without a search warrant, in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. See Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 205-06, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Whether the plaintiffs’ claims are “based Options: A. holding that absent exigent circumstances an arrest within the home can only be effectuated with a warrant probable cause is insufficient B. holding that an arrest warrant without a search warrant does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant C. holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant D. holding that in die absence of exigent circumstances the mere existence of probable cause does not justify a nonconsensual entry by police into a home without an arrest or search warrant E. holding that in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances a law enforcement officer must procure a search warrant before searehing for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower has provided to the Agent on or prior to the Restatement Date, a true, complete and correct description of all insurance maintained by or on behalf of the Loan Parties and the Subsidiaries as of the Restatement Date. As of the Restatement Date, all such insurance is in full force and effect and all premiums in respect of such insurance have been duly paid. The Borrower believes that the insurance maintained by or on behalf of the Borrower and the Subsidiaries is adequate and is in accordance with normal industry practice.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (affirming dismissal of forfeiture proceedings due to 23-day delay between tenth day after request for hearing and date on which hearing could have occurred); Metiver, 684 So.2d at 206 (affirming order holding five-day delay between tenth day after claimant requested hearing on forfeiture and date on which hearing occurred did not comply with Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act requirements that hearing occur within ten days or as soon as practicable thereafter, and requiring State to return currency seized during traffic stop). Forfeitures are not favored in law or equity, thus forfeiture statutes are strictly construed. See In re Forfeiture of 1993 Lexus ES 300, VIN: JT8VK13T9P0196573, 798 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Town of Oakland v. Mercer, 851 So.2d 266, 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, at the expiration of the ten days Options: A. holding that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the persons sought to be subjected to their operation B. holding that a governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign C. holding due process mandates that the provisions of the forfeiture act be strictly interpreted in favor of the persons being deprived of their property D. holding that only if provisions in an insurance contract are open to more than one interpretation should it be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured E. holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions

assistant: The best answer is C. holding due process mandates that the provisions of the forfeiture act be strictly interpreted in favor of the persons being deprived of their property
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). 2 . In his notice of appeal, Poyer stated that he did not receive notice of the denial of relief in a timely manner, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6)(A), and he sought leave to proceed with his appeal. However, he filed the notice of appeal requesting additional time, at the earliest, on January 12, 2016 — 266 days after the court entered the dismissal order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6)(B) (requiring that motion to reopen be "filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier”); Baker v. United States, 670 F.3d 448, 456 (3d Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry., 651 F.2d Options: A. holding that notice of appeal was not effectively taken where appeal was filed simultaneously with timely motion for reconsideration because when timely motion for reconsideration is filed a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of the motion to reconsider has no effect B. holding that tenday time limit to appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional and an appellate court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal C. holding that the 180day filing deadline applicable to motions to reopen from removal orders filed in absentia is not jurisdictional D. holding under section 1144s predecessor statute that the 180day period runs from the date of the confirmation order even if the fraud is not discovered in the 180day period E. holding that district court had no authority to reopen appeal period when motion was filed beyond 180day limit

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that district court had no authority to reopen appeal period when motion was filed beyond 180day limit
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: if you are the parent or legal guardian of a minor that creates a microsoft account or skype account , you accept these terms on the minor 's behalf and are responsible for all use of the microsoft account , skype account , or services , including purchases , whether the minor 's account is now open or created later .

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: murders for revenge. The court also noted that a life sentence for Mendez was in line with the sentences received by Mendez’s co-defendants. The district court carefully considered Mendez’s legal and factual arguments and found none persuasive. The court thus determined that it would have imposed the same sentence had it known the guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. We have held that a properly calculated guidelines sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Mendez has provided no reason to rebut that presumption, and the district court has given a very thorough analysis of the section 3553(a) factors in support of that sentence. See United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Under the law of this circuit, that is enough Options: A. holding that the courts statement that the sentence was sufficient and a greater sentence is not necessary did not contradict the requirements of 3553a B. holding that the sentencing judge need only provide an adequate statement of the judges reasoning consistent with section 3553a for thinking that the sentence selected is indeed appropriate for the particular defendant C. holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a D. holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of 3553a E. recognizing that the weight to be afforded any given argument made pursuant to one of the section 3553a factors is a matter firmly committed to the discretion of the sentencing judge

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the sentencing judge need only provide an adequate statement of the judges reasoning consistent with section 3553a for thinking that the sentence selected is indeed appropriate for the particular defendant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to pay $200 in counsel fees without any discussion. Because the court failed to conduct a hearing, we vacate the reimbursement order and remand to the trial court for a hearing to determine defendant’s ability to pay. See People v. Roberson, 335 Ill. App. 3d 798, 803-04, 780 N.E.2d 1144, 1148-49 (2002) (remanding for a hearing on the defendant’s ability to pay counsel fees where the notice requirements were not followed, defendant was not given the opportunity to present evidence, and the record did not indicate the trial court considered defendant’s financial affidavit). Finally, the trial court imposed a $10 DNA-draw fee. This court has already determined that such a fee is not authorized by statute. People v. Hunter, 358 Ill. App. 3d 1085, 1094-95, 831 N.E.2d 1192, 1199 (2005) (<HOLDING>). The court also erroneously imposed a $20 Options: A. holding that neither compensatory nor punitive damages are recoverable under section 17200 B. holding that dna act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the fifth amendment C. holding that neither section 5 43a nor section 5 4 3j of the corrections code 730 ilcs 55 43a j west 2004 authorizes a trial court to require a defendant to pay the cost of dna collection D. holding that where the record showed neither that the trial court explained to the defendant his right to a jury trial nor an effective waiver of the right structural error occurred E. holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that neither section 5 43a nor section 5 4 3j of the corrections code 730 ilcs 55 43a j west 2004 authorizes a trial court to require a defendant to pay the cost of dna collection
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 notices pursuant to this Agreement must be given in writing and shall be effective when received if hand-delivered or upon dispatch if sent by reputable overnight delivery service, facsimile, or U.S. Mail to the appropriate address or facsimile number as set forth in the Management Agreement.

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: The Opinion, filed on September 1, 2010 and reported at 620 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010), is amended as follows: 1. At slip op. 13266, 620 F.3d at 1209, the citation <see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Flowers, 414 F.3d 1066, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) > is replaced with <see also Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel, 869 F.2d 1185, 1193 (9th Cir.l988).> 2. At slip op. 13266, 620 F.3d at 1210, the citation <see Defenders of Wildlife, 414 F.3d at 1072.> is replaced with <see Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 575 F.3d 999, 1018-19 (9th Cir.2009). > 3. At slip op. 13267, 620 F.3d at 1210, the citation <see also Defenders of Wildlife, 414 F.3d at 1074 (<HOLDING>)> is deleted. An Amended Opinion is filed Options: A. holding that the corps arbitrarily refused to initiate section 7 consultation where fws demanded consultation B. holding that to the extent that the securing of information is necessary to a prosecutors decision to initiate a criminal prosecution it is encompassed within the protected quasijudicial immunity afforded to the decision itself C. holding that section 311034 does not make section 890041 jurisdictional D. holding that section 4a12 is a broadly applicable section of the guidelines E. holding that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on a claim brought against them under section 14707 where the claim alleged a failure of defendant to register as required by section 13901

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the corps arbitrarily refused to initiate section 7 consultation where fws demanded consultation
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: jurisdiction over the supplemental state claims that plaintiff had also filed. Id. at 256. The court, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), disagreed, stating, “[i]n a federal-question case, the termination of the foundational federal claim does not divest the district court of power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction but, rather, sets the stage for an exercise of the court’s informed discretion.” Id. at 256-257. Perhaps defendants mean to argue that the court must dismiss the pendent state claims because the federal claims have not only been determined to be without merit, but that they never were “substantial” within the constitutional sense in which that term was used in cases such as United Mine Workers v. Gibbs and Newman v. Burgin. Newman v. Burgin, 930 F.2d 955, 963 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>), citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. Options: A. holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit and the district court has considerable authority whether or not to exercise this power in light of such considerations as judicial economy convenience fairness to litigants and eomity B. holding if the legislature had the power to confer upon the county commissioners jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether or not a town was of undue extent and to deprive it of a part of its territory then the proceeding being statutory before a body of limited powers the record must show affirmatively that such a case was brought before them as they were authorized to hear and determine and that all the jurisdictional facts were found to exist where the jurisdiction and power to hear and determine depends upon the existence of a fact that fact must appear or the proceedings are coram non judice and void C. holding that no substantial question of federal law was required to be answered to determine the plaintiffs statelaw legal malpractice negligence and breach of contract claims D. holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit E. recognizing a distinction between the power of a federal court to hear statelaw claims and the discretionary exercise of that power

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit