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: Code). See supra ¶ 16. 135 State courts and state legislatures function in dialogue with one another and serve as checks on one another's power-alternately reinforcing, calling into question, and even reversing the other's law-making activities. In the words of one commentator, we live in a "world where common and statutory law are woven together in a complex fabric." David L. Shapiro, Continuity and Change in Statutory Interpretation, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 921, 937 (1992). When courts fill interstices in statutory law in a manner the legislature disapproves of, the legislature can amend the statute to direct a different outcome in future cases. Similarly, the legislature can overrule or preempt common law doctrines by statute. See, eg., Bishop v. GenTec Inc., 2002 UT 36, ¶ 12, 48 P.3d 218 (<HOLDING>). Although courts cannot overrule statutory law Options: A. holding that county liability under 1983 cannot rest on a theory of respondeat superior B. holding that employees defamatory statements made at work about matters relating to work were within the scope of their employment for purposes of respondeat superior and recognizing that californias respondeat superior doctrine imposes a broad rule of liability on employers C. holding that the liability reform act preempted in part the common law doctrine of respondeat superior D. recognizing respondeat superior liability E. holding that liability in a 1983 action must be predicated on personal involvement not on the basis of respondeat superior

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the liability reform act preempted in part the common law doctrine of respondeat superior
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: Although Lender shall have no obligation to make any Advance unless and until all of the conditions precedent to such Advance have been satisfied, Lender may, at its discretion, make such Advance prior to that time without waiving or releasing any of the Obligations.

assistant: No Waivers
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 demonstrate incompetency, a defendant could easily avoid prosecution through immature behavior. Id. The State directs this Court to Clark v. State, 47 S.W.3d 211 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001, no pet.). We find Clark analogous to the instant case. In Clark, the trial court held a competency hearing in July of 1999, but the appellant argued that the court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a second competency hearing in November of 1999. Clark, 47 S.W.3d at 215-16. The court of appeals noted that, while the appellant’s behavior at the November 1999 pretrial hearing was “bizarre,” no new evidence was presented indicating a change in the appellant’s mental condition from the previous finding. Id. at 218, citing Miles v. State, 688 S.W.2d 219, 224 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1985, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>); O’Neil v. State, 642 S.W.2d 259, 262 Options: A. holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted B. holding defendant not entitled toa hearing on his motion for a new trial where he failed to prove that his new evidence was in fact newly discovered and that its recent discovery was in no way attributable to a previous lack of diligence C. holding that appellant must present some evidence of a subsequent change in competency or some new evidence in a manner analogous to newly discovered evidence in a motion for new trial to complain of a denial of a second competency hearing D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the evidence would serve only to impeach testimony E. holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that appellant must present some evidence of a subsequent change in competency or some new evidence in a manner analogous to newly discovered evidence in a motion for new trial to complain of a denial of a second competency hearing
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 Perez purchased $75,000 in counterfeit currency and (2) a calculated Guidelines range of 37 to 46 months that was based, in part, on this finding. Second, although the court did not explicitly engage in a Guidelines calculation at sentencing, it did refer to the proposed Guidelines range at the start of sentencing and confirm that Perez agreed with this range. Third, the court’s statement of reasons set forth its calculation of the Guidelines range, which matched the calculation in the presentence report. We therefore identify no error in the court’s Guidelines calculation or its adoption of the presentence report’s findings, and we decline to vacate the sentence on these grounds. See Aldeen, 792 F.3d at 251 (requiring calculation of Guidelines range); Molina, 356 F.3d at 275 (<HOLDING>). B. Section § 3553(a) Factors and Explanation Options: A. holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report B. holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient C. holding district courts adoption of the presentence report constitutes sufficient findings D. holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report E. holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient
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 Executive hereby acknowledges and represents that she has had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel regarding her rights and obligations under this Agreement and that she fully understands the terms and conditions contained herein. Executive represents and warrants that Executive has provided the Company a true and correct copy of any agreements that purport: (a) to limit Executive’s right to be employed by the Company; (b) to prohibit Executive from engaging in any activities on behalf of the Company; or (c) to restrict Executive’s right to use or disclose any information while employed by the Company. Executive further represents and warrants that Executive will not use on the Company’s behalf any information, materials, data or documents belonging to a third party that are not generally available to the public, unless Executive has obtained written authorization to do so from the third party and provided such authorization to the Company. In the course of Executive’s employment with the Company, Executive is not to breach any obligation of confidentiality that Executive has with third parties, and Executive agrees to fulfill all such obligations during Executive’s employment with the Company. Executive further agrees not to disclose to the Company or use while working for the Company any trade secrets belonging to a third party.

assistant: Representations
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: Upon a party's reasonable request, the other party shall, at such other party's sole cost and expense, promptly execute all such further documents and instruments, and take all such further actions, necessary to give full effect to this Agreement.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: a “rational basis,” the court’s inquiry should “determine whether ‘the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation for its exercise of discretion.’ ” Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332-33; see also Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971)) (“[I]n making the factual inquiry concerning whether an agency decision was ‘arbitrary or capricious,’ the reviewing court ‘must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. F.3d 1552, 1555-56 (Fed.Cir.1994)); see also FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424, 427 (Fed.Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). D. Resolution Of The Government’s And Waste Options: A. holding that existence of partnership depends upon the conduct intention and relationship between the parties though no one factor is determinative it is necessary to examine the relationship as a whole B. holding that excluding expert testimony was harmless and did not affect the jury verdict because the subject matter of the testimony was only one factor and by no means a determinative one C. holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others D. holding that the availability of the icrp is but one factor to be considered in determining undue hardship but it is not determinative E. holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others
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: Plaintiffs satisfied those standards — the questions to which we now turn. A. The Supreme Court long has required that a plaintiff seeking relief under the Equal Protection Clause to establish that a challenged official action can “be traced to a ... discriminatory purpose.” Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 240, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). The discriminatory purpose or intent requirement extends to Equal Protection challenges to redistricting plans, in particular, including partisan gerrymandering challenges. See, e.g., Bandemer, 478 U.S. at 127, 106 S.Ct. 2797 (plurality op.); id. at 161, 106 S.Ct. 2797 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 617, 102 S.Ct. 3272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1982); see also Cooper, 137 S.Ct. at 1463 (<HOLDING>). ■ To establish a discriminatory purpose or Options: A. holding that to establish a prima facie equal pay act claim the plaintiff must show that the jobs being compared are substantially equal B. holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 C. holding that the equal protection clause forbids the prosecution from challenging potential jurors solely on the basis of race or assumptions drawn from their race D. holding that to establish a racial gerrymandering claim under the equal protection clause a plaintiff must show that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislatures decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district E. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that to establish a racial gerrymandering claim under the equal protection clause a plaintiff must show that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislatures decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district
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: could be revoked if the findings of the EA suggested an EIS was warranted, issuance of the permits in question did not constitute an “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources” prior to performance of an EA, and therefore does not run afoul of NEPA. See Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d at 1143 (regulations require agencies to prepare NEPA documents, including environmental assessments, “before any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.”) (citations omitted). However, defendants overlook the fact that, to the extent that permits contemplated by the EA were outstanding during the performance of the EA, states could have killed mute swans, and no doubt in some cases did, thereby engaging in an “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.” See id. (<HOLDING>); see also Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 Options: A. holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity B. holding that such an impermissible commitment occurred where federal agency entered into a contract with an indigenous tribe to authorize and fund whaling activities prior to preparing an environmental assessment of the impacts of such activities C. holding that waiver in a sue and be sued clause is limited to actions involving the corporate activities of the tribe and does not extend to actions of the tribe in its capacity as a political governing body D. holding that a government agency seeking to enforce a prior order regarding prepetition acts of a debt or is not bound by a confirmed plan a if such agency fails to participate in the confirmation of such plan b if the obligations that such agency seeks to impose upon such debtor do not constitute claims c notwithstanding that such plan purports to treat such debtors obligations to such agency and d since it thus is not a named entity within 1141a E. recognizing such an exception

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that such an impermissible commitment occurred where federal agency entered into a contract with an indigenous tribe to authorize and fund whaling activities prior to preparing an environmental assessment of the impacts of such activities
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, the Credit Agreement (including giving effect to the amendment set forth in Section 1 above), and the other Loan Documents (collectively, the “ Relevant Documents ”), sets forth the entire understanding and agreement of the parties hereto in relation to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior negotiations and agreements among the parties relating to such subject matter. No promise, condition, representation or warranty, express or implied, not set forth in the Relevant Documents shall bind any party hereto, and no such party has relied on any such promise, condition, representation or warranty. Each of the parties hereto acknowledges that, except as otherwise expressly stated in the Relevant Documents, no representations, warranties or commitments, express or implied, have been made by any party to any other party in relation to the subject matter hereof or thereof. None of the terms or conditions of this Amendment may be changed, modified, waived or canceled orally or otherwise, except in writing and in accordance with Section 10.01 of the Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The existence of this Restricted Stock Agreement shall not affect in any way the right or power of the Company or its shareholders to make or authorize any or all adjustments, recapitalizations, reorganizations or other changes in the Company’s capital structure or its business, or any merger or consolidation of the Company or any issue of bonds, debentures, preferred or prior preference stock ahead of or affecting the Restricted Stock or the rights thereof, or the dissolution or liquidation of the Company, or any sale or transfer of all or any part of its assets or business, or any other corporate act or proceeding, whether of a similar character or otherwise.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH OF THE PARTIES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVE ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM (WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) ARISING OUT OF, RELATING TO OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR THE ACTIONS OF ANY PARTY IN NEGOTIATION, ADMINISTRATION, PERFORMANCE OR ENFORCEMENT HEREOF.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed by the parties separately in counterparts, and facsimile or electronic (PDF) copies of the separately-executed Agreement shall, upon exchange by delivery, facsimile, or PDF/email between the parties or their counsel, have the same force and effect as if a mutually-signed, single original agreement had been executed.

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 initial term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and continue through November 30, 2013 and shall be renewed for additional one-year periods unless a Party gives at least 90 days’ prior written notice of its intent not to renew, provided, however, that each such renewal shall be subject to a written agreement about pricing and such other terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon among the Parties (the “ Stated Termination Date ”), unless earlier terminated by a Party as provided in this Agreement (the “ Actual Termination Date ”).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Section 18.6 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement; provided that other than with respect to information disclosed pursuant to Article 3 , as to which such provisions shall survive indefinitely, such provisions shall survive only a period of one (1) year.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All negotiations relative to this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby have been carried out by the Seller directly with the Buyer without the intervention of any other person on behalf of the Seller in such manner as to give rise to any valid claim by any other person against the Seller or the Buyer for a finder’s fee, brokerage commission or similar payment.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: procedures that created a substantial risk that it would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. [Id. at 634-35.] While Williams is distinguishable from the instant case in that the trial court there failed to inform the jury of the consequences of a unanimous verdict even in its original charge, this distinction is not of constitutional significance. Part of the constitutional concern is with the clarity of the court’s instructions. See People v. Durre, 690 P.2d 165, 173 (Colo.1984) (en banc) (“[T]he certainty essential to a jury verdict directly resulting in death can only be achieved when the jurors are clearly instructed concerning the effect of their verdicts on the ultimate question of life imprisonment or death.”); Whalen v. State, 492 A.2d 552, 562 (Del.1985) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons previously set forth at Options: A. holding that trial courts instruction implying that the jury had to be unanimous in imposing a sentence of life imprisonment violated defendants constitutional rights because this instruction could have been clearerand should have been B. holding new trial should not have been granted because jury was properly instructed C. holding appellate counsel ineffective for failing to argue the trial court committed fundamental error in giving the thenstandard jury instruction for manslaughter by act even though controlling precedent in the district had approved the instruction when the instruction had been found fundamentally erroneous in another district and conflict between the two districts would have allowed defendant to seek relief in the supreme court D. holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction E. holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trial courts instruction implying that the jury had to be unanimous in imposing a sentence of life imprisonment violated defendants constitutional rights because this instruction could have been clearerand should have been
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) There are no actions, suits or proceedings by or before any arbitrator or Governmental Authority pending against or, to the knowledge of Parent or any Borrowing Subsidiary, threatened in writing against or affecting Parent or any of the Subsidiaries (i) as to which there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse determination and that, if adversely determined, would reasonably be expected, individually or in the aggregate, to result in a Material Adverse Effect or (ii) that involve any of the Loan Documents or the Transactions.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable, such provision will be distinct and severable from the other provisions of this Agreement and such unenforceability will not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions. If a court holds that the duration, scope, geographic range or any other restriction stated in any provision of this Agreement is unreasonable under circumstances then existing, the parties agree that the maximum duration, scope, geographic range or other restriction that the court deems reasonable under such circumstances will be substituted and that the court will have the power to revise any of those restrictions to cover the maximum period, scope, geographic range and/or other restriction permitted by law. It is the intent of the parties that the court, in establishing any such substitute restriction, recognize that the parties’ desire is that the stated restrictions upon which the parties have agreed be honored to the maximum lawful extent.

assistant: Severability
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 payment for the services to be rendered by Executive as provided in Section 1 and subject to the terms and conditions of Section 2, Luminex agrees to pay to Executive a “ Base Salary ” at the rate of $11,041.67 per each semi-monthly pay period or $265,000 per annum (or such greater amount as may be determined from time to time by the Chief Executive Officer and ratified by the Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee thereof) payable in accordance with the then-current payroll policies of Luminex.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: what to say, J.B. also testified that her mother told her "to tell the truth." Transcript at 24. Having reviewed the record, we find that the testimony of seven-year-old J.B. was not so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it. Indeed, the trial court, in finding Hampton guilty, noted that "the victim in this case is very credible, very articulate, mature young lady who gave explicit details of what this Defendant did to her...." Transcript at 111. Based upon the facts detailed above and set forth in the record, we conclude that the State presented evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could have found Hampton guilty of child molesting as a class A felony. See, eg., Surber v. State, 884 N.E.2d 856, 869 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Fajardo, 859 N.E.2d at 1209), trans. Options: A. holding that arresting officers testimony at suppression hearing supported finding of probable cause to arrest defendant for dwi despite contradictory testimony of defendant and his passenger and despite minor inconsistencies in officers testimony B. holding that testimony of sixyearold vietim was not incredibly dubious despite some inconsistencies and that such inconsistencies are appropriate to the cireumstances presented the age of the witness and the passage of time between the incident and the time of her statements and testimony C. holding that trier of fact may believe one witness disbelieve others and resolve inconsistencies in the testimony of any witness D. holding that it did not violate the defendants right to remain silent when the prosecutor questioned her about inconsistencies between her pretrial statements to authorities and her defense at trial E. holding that jurors may consider inconsistencies and deficiencies in testimony when assessing witness credibility

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that testimony of sixyearold vietim was not incredibly dubious despite some inconsistencies and that such inconsistencies are appropriate to the cireumstances presented the age of the witness and the passage of time between the incident and the time of her statements and 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: are not compelled to follow any of their conflicting results. Courts in other jurisdictions have addressed the issue squarely, but have reached differing conclusions. Three principal interpretations are possible: (1) the FCIA applies only to judgments entered after the effective date, (2) it applies to judgments entered before the effective date for the entire post-judgment period, and (3) it applies to judgments entered before the effective date but only for interest accruing in the period after the effective date. Each of these interpretations has found judicial approval. A majority of the circuits that have addressed the issue have concluded that the FCIA should apply only to judgments entered after the effective date. See Brooks v. United States, 757 F.2d 734, 741-43 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Litton Sys. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 746 Options: A. holding that the fcia does not apply to a july 1981 judgment against a private party for inter est accruing after the judgment B. holding that the statute does not apply retroactively to claims accruing prior to the effective date C. holding that the fcia does not apply to a june 1981 judgment against a private party for interest accruing either after the judgment or after the effective date D. holding that the fcia does not apply to a september 1981 judgment against the united states for interest accruing after the acts effective date E. holding oneyear statute of limitations applies only to children born after the statutes effective date of september 1 1975

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the fcia does not apply to a september 1981 judgment against the united states for interest accruing after the acts effective date
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: appeal, Delarosa does not challenge this determination. 9 . Angel Rodriguez argues on appeal that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession. We disagree. A. Rodriguez argued at his suppression hearing that he was physically assaulted by police officers and was coerced into giving a statement without receiving a Miranda warning, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Judge Duffy rejected these claims, referring to them as a "tissue of lies." Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court’s factual findings with respect to the voluntariness of A. Rodriguez's statement and the adequacy of the Miranda warnings were not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Khalil, 214 F.3d 111, 122 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Vazquez Baez does not challenge his Options: A. holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error B. holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error C. holding that a district courts determination as to the applicability of a privilege is reviewed for clear error D. holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error E. holding that the district courts credibility assessments are entitled to deference and reviewed for clear error

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district courts credibility assessments are entitled to deference and reviewed for clear error
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 the legislative history for guidance.” Holland, 181 F.3d at 603 (internal quotation marks omitted). And, then, “[i]f congressional intent is not apparent from an examination of the legislative history, we apply the traditional tools of statutory construction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Prior to 1994, the mail fraud statute criminalized the use of the United States Postal Service to execute a fraudulent scheme, but had no application to private or commercial interstate carriers. See United States v. Lefkowitz, 125 F.3d 608, 617 (8th Cir.1997). Then, as now, the statute made no distinction between intrastate and interstate mailings, and it had been extended to both as a proper exercise of the Postal Power. See United States v. Elliott, 89 F.3d 1360, 1364 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In 1994, however, Congress broadened the Options: A. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional B. holding that whenever a person uses the united states post office to deposit to transport and to deliver parcels money or other material by means of the mail that person clearly and unmistakably has used a facility in interstate commerce irrespective of the intrastate destination of the item mailed and that such intrastate use satisfies the jurisdictional requirement of the travel act C. recognizing that congress had the power to regulate boxcars that traveled exclusively intrastate because of their inherent mobility and connection to interstate commerce it is no objection to such an exertion of commerce clause power that the dangers intended to be avoided arise in whole or in part out of matters connected with intrastate commerce D. holding that the jurisdictional basis of the mail fraud statute is grounded in the postal power and therefore necessarily encompasses all items passing through the united states mails even if their passage is purely intrastate E. recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the jurisdictional basis of the mail fraud statute is grounded in the postal power and therefore necessarily encompasses all items passing through the united states mails even if their passage is purely intrastate
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 any term or other provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced by any rule of Law or public policy, all other conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the economic or legal substance of the transactions contemplated hereby is not affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon such determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced, 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 an acceptable manner to the end that transactions contemplated hereby are fulfilled to the extent possible.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: it is the prerogative of EarthCam’s customers to "elect” to either publicize the contents of their webpage or choose to keep the webpage private. 6 . File Transfer Protocol is a network protocol used to transfer data from one computer to another. 7 . "Although an answer to an interrogatory is admissible against the party answering the interrogatory, it ordinarily is not admissible in evidence against anyone else, including a codefendant. A party who has answered interrogatories submitted by an adversary generally cannot secure admission of its answers into evidence and may not rely on its answers as evidence in its favor or as affirmative evidence.” See 23 Am.Jur.2d, Depositions and Discovery, § 131 (collecting cases); Kirk v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 61 F.3d 147, 167-68 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Gilmore v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Civil No. Options: A. holding that documents produced in response to discovery requests were authenticated under rule 901b4 of the federal rules of evidence and constituted party admissions under rule 801d2a B. holding that a response to an interrogatory cannot be admitted on the basis that the interrogatory was signed and sworn under penalty of perjury because the response lacks the circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness contemplated by rule 80324 of the federal rules of evidence C. holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence D. holding that direct and circumstantial evidence are to be given the same weight when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence E. recognizing that aside from sworn affidavits a government attorney who signs a document filed with a court is acting as an officer of the court and is bound by the requirements of rule 11 federal rules of civil procedure

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a response to an interrogatory cannot be admitted on the basis that the interrogatory was signed and sworn under penalty of perjury because the response lacks the circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness contemplated by rule 80324 of the federal rules of 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: ( h ) you will not , without authorization , access , tamper with , or use non-public areas of the products , headspace 's computer systems , or the technical delivery systems of headspace 's providers .

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: Nyabwa v. Stephens, No. 12-20682, 2013 WL 3091894, at *1 (5th Cir. June 20, 2013). 4 . Although the court held the statutory subsection did not regulate speech, the opinion states: "Texas Penal Code section 21.15(b) neither limits photography because of the ideas expressed nor favors one type of photograph over another; therefore, the statute is content-neutral.” See Nyabwa, 366 S.W.3d at 725. As a result, the court seemingly agrees the statute regulates speech, that is, photography, but does it in a "content neutral” manner. See id. 5 . Although Thompson did not explicitly address the O’Brien factors in his briefing, we liberally construe his arguments as they apply to the O’Brien test. See Burnett v. Sharp, 328 S.W.3d 594, 598 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Based on this court's holding on the Options: A. holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction B. holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances C. holding that the pleading function of a petition for modification is to reasonably inform the other side of what is to be established in support of the petition so that the opponent has a fair opportunity to defend and prepare a case D. holding court must construe pleading liberally in pleaders favor and construe petition to include all claims that reasonably may be inferred from language used in petition E. holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision

assistant: The best answer is D. holding court must construe pleading liberally in pleaders favor and construe petition to include all claims that reasonably may be inferred from language used in petition
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: Such a result would remove the nagging questions surrounding this case that might otherwise undermine confidence in the criminal justice system. In the event that DNA testing re-affirms that Cherrix committed the crimes, this Court will consider the petition for writ of habeas corpus and render judgment accordingly. 1 . The specific charges are as follows: (1) capital murder during the commission of forcible sodomy; (2) use of a firearm during the commission of a murder; (3) forcible sodomy; (4) use of a firearm during the commission of forcible sodomy; and (5) possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. 2 . The trial court also sentenced Cherrix to life imprisonment for his forcible sodomy conviction, eight years imprisonment for using a firearm in the co 807-08 (1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Thomas, 245 N.J.Super. 428, 586 A.2d Options: A. holding that a claim seeking dna testing is cognizable under section 1983 B. holding that a new trial was warranted and stating that the defendant was entitled to have dna testing done on vaginal swabs taken from the victim C. holding that dna test results warranted a new trial of a postconviction petitioner who was convicted of rape and kidnaping D. holding that trial delay for dna testing was attributable to the state but was mere negligence E. holding that there is no federal due process right to present new evidence of actual innocence such as dna testing

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a new trial was warranted and stating that the defendant was entitled to have dna testing done on vaginal swabs taken from the victim
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 authorized capital stock of the Company and all securities of the Company issued and outstanding are set forth in the SEC Reports as of the dates reflected therein. All of the outstanding shares of Common Stock and other securities of the Company have been duly authorized and validly issued, and are fully paid and nonassessable. Except as set forth in the SEC Reports, there are no agreements or arrangements under which the Company is obligated to register the sale of any of the Company’s securities under the 1933 Act. Except as set forth in the SEC Reports, no shares of Common Stock and/or other securities of the Company are entitled to preemptive rights and there are no outstanding debt securities and no contracts, commitments, understandings, or arrangements by which the Company is or may become bound to issue additional shares of the capital stock and/or other securities of the Company or options, warrants, scrip, rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities or rights convertible into or exchangeable for, any shares of capital stock of the Company other than those issued or granted in the ordinary course of business pursuant to the Company’s equity incentive and/or compensatory plans or arrangements. Except for customary transfer restrictions contained in agreements entered into by the Company to sell restricted securities and/or as set forth in the SEC Reports, the Company is not a party to, and it has no knowledge of, any agreement restricting the voting or transfer of any shares of the capital stock and/or other securities of the Company. Except as set forth in the SEC Reports, the offer and sale of all capital stock, convertible or exchangeable securities, rights, warrants, options and/or any other securities of the Company when any such securities of the Company were issued complied with all applicable federal and state securities laws, and no current and/or prior holder of any securities of the Company has any right of rescission or damages or any “put” or similar right with respect thereto that would have a Material Adverse Effect. Except as set forth in the SEC Reports, there are no securities or instruments of the Company containing anti-dilution or similar provisions that will be triggered by the issuance and/or sale of the Securities and/or the consummation of the transactions described herein or in any of the other Transaction Documents.

assistant: Capitalization
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 and the Registration Rights Agreement have been duly and validly authorized, executed and delivered on behalf of the Investor and constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of the Investor enforceable against the Investor in accordance with their respective terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by general principles of equity or applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, liquidation and other similar laws relating to, or affecting generally, the enforcement of applicable creditors’ rights and remedies.

assistant: Enforcements
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: You hereby agree to keep confidential the existence of, and any information concerning, a dispute described in this Section 10, except that you may disclose information concerning such dispute to the court that is considering such dispute or to your legal counsel (provided that such counsel agrees not to disclose any such information other than as necessary to the prosecution or defense of the dispute).

assistant: Confidentiality
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 and its Affiliates shall have the right and are hereby authorized to withhold from amounts otherwise payable hereunder any applicable withholding taxes in respect of the PUs and to take such other action as may be necessary to satisfy all obligations for the payment of such withholding taxes.

assistant: Taxes