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: on its face define who can sue under the statute, it does clearly define who can be sued. A plaintiff may bring a Title VII action against any “employer,” defined as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees____” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). It is undisputed that Palmetto does not employ fifteen employees. Llampallas, however, argued at trial that Mini-Circuits and Palmetto should be considered as a “single employer” under Title VII such that the employees of both companies count toward the fifteen-employee jurisdictional requirement. The district court agreed, applying the four-part test developed in Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 85 S.Ct. 876, 13 L.Ed.2d 789 (1965) (<HOLDING>), to hold that Mini-Circuits and Palmetto were Options: A. holding that a district court may have jurisdiction over action taken by the national labor relations board despite an express statutory finality provision when the agency has acted in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the national labor relations act B. holding that the but for test applied in a mixed motive case under the national labor relations act C. holding that although a union may waive a members substantive statutory right under the national labor relations act to be free from having a private employer discourage membership in any labor organization such waiver did not occur because such waiver must be established clearly and unmistakably D. holding ports authority was not an employer subject to the jurisdiction of the national labor relations board E. holding that two entities were a single employer and therefore that their gross receipts could be totaled together to establish jurisdiction under the national labor relations act

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that two entities were a single employer and therefore that their gross receipts could be totaled together to establish jurisdiction under the national labor relations act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities of the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.’ ” Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 314 (6th Cir.2005). To prevail on a section 1985 claim, “there must be some racial or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ actions.” Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 314 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971)); see also Smith v. Thornburg, 136 F.3d 1070, 1078 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The officers’ subjective intent for making an Options: A. holding that plaintiff must present such evidence B. holding that custody decision based on race is not justified C. holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory D. holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity E. holding that the plaintiff further must demonstrate that the conspiracy was motivated by a class based animus such as race

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the plaintiff further must demonstrate that the conspiracy was motivated by a class based animus such as race
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: Investor: (i) if a natural person, represents that the Investor has reached the age of 21 and has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and all other related agreements or certificates and to carry out the provisions hereof and thereof; (ii) if a corporation, partnership, or limited liability company or partnership, or association, joint stock company, trust, unincorporated organization or other entity, represents that such entity was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the Securities, such entity is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the state of its organization, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby is authorized by, and will not result in a violation of state law or its charter or other organizational or trust documents, such entity has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and all other related agreements or certificates and to carry out the provisions hereof and thereof and to purchase and hold the Securities, the execution and delivery of this Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary action, this Agreement has been duly executed and delivered on behalf of such entity and is a legal, valid and binding obligation of such entity; or (iii) if executing this Agreement in a representative or fiduciary capacity, represents that it has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement in such capacity and on behalf of the subscribing individual, ward, partnership, trust, estate, corporation, or limited liability company or partnership, or other entity for whom the Investor is executing this Agreement, and such individual, partnership, ward, trust, estate, corporation, or limited liability company or partnership, or other entity has full right and power to perform pursuant to this Agreement and make an investment in the Company, and represents that this Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of such entity. The execution and delivery of this Agreement will not violate or be in conflict with any order, judgment, injunction, agreement or controlling document to which the Investor is a party or by which it is bound.

assistant: Authorizations
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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), arguing inter alia that he was improperly sentenced in light of our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.2011) (en banc), because he did not have the requisite qualifying prior convictions to trigger a mandatory life sentence or the career offender designation. The district court granted the motion with regard to the Simmons issue and ordered resentencing. At resentencing, the district court concluded that Austin did not qualify for the enhanced sentence under § 851 or the career offender designation. The court further sustained Austin’s objections to three criminal history points, as calculated in the original PSR, assigned to convictions that were consolidated for sentencing. See United States v. Davis, 720 F.3d 215 (4th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). The district court calculated a revised Options: A. holding that the guidelines definition of consolidated offenses was not applicable to a statutory minimum sentence imposed under 841 B. holding that where a defendant receives a consolidated sentence or consolidated judgment under north carolina law it is one sentence and absent another qualifying sentence the career offender enhancement is inapplicable C. holding that a debtor is required to claim any exemptions under north carolina law because north carolina is an opt out state under 11 usc 522b D. holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce E. holding that consolidated sen tence or consolidated judgment under north carolina law is single sentence for guidelines purposes

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that consolidated sen tence or consolidated judgment under north carolina law is single sentence for guidelines purposes
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: To request the issuance of a Letter of Credit or the amendment, renewal or extension of an outstanding Letter of Credit, the Borrower Representative shall deliver by certified mail or transmit by facsimile (or transmit by electronic communication, if arrangements for doing so have been approved in writing by the LC Issuer) a Letter of Credit Issuance Request to the LC Issuer and the Administrative Agent not later than 11:00 a.m., New York, New York time, on the third Business Day preceding the requested date of issuance, amendment, renewal or extension (or such later date and time as is acceptable to the LC Issuer).

assistant: Amendments
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: retaliate against a witness and retaliation against a witness— as his codefendants. The charges stemmed from the same nucleus of facts, and the government proved each charge against each defendant through interrelated evidence. See United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, 108 F.3d 1228, 1234 (10th Cir.1997) (finding that the denial of defendant’s motion to sever was proper when the charges involved a common scheme and the evidence was “massive and interrelated”). Indeed, the evidence about which Mr. Wardell complains — evidence pertaining to the actual commission of the assault by Mr. Shields and Mr. Temple-man — would have been admissible against him in his own trial, as proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 668 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The district court also took steps to Options: A. holding regarding sixth amendment prejudice if there is no reasonable possibility that the appellate court would have ruled in his favor there can be no strickland prejudice B. holding that there was no prejudice when evidence complained of would have been admissible against defendant in separate trial C. holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible D. holding that the conviction should be upheld because there was no prejudice to the defendant even though the defendant had been charged with one conspiracy and the proof at trial showed two separate conspiracies E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for severance where the allegedly prejudicial evidence would have been admissible in separate trials

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that there was no prejudice when evidence complained of would have been admissible against defendant in separate trial
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 person who is or shall have been a member of the Committee, or of the Board, shall be indemnified and held harmless by the Company against and from (a) any loss, cost, liability, or expense that may be imposed upon or reasonably incurred by him or her in connection with or resulting from any claim, action, suit, or proceeding to which he or she may be a party or in which he or she may be involved by reason of any action taken or failure to act under the Plan or any award, and (b) from any and all amounts paid by him or her in settlement thereof, with the Company’s approval, or paid by him or her in satisfaction of any judgment in any such claim, action, suit, or proceeding against him or her, provided he or she shall give the Company an opportunity, at its own expense, to handle and defend the same before he or she undertakes to handle and defend it on his or her own behalf. The foregoing right of indemnification shall not be exclusive of any other rights of indemnification to which such persons may be entitled under the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation or Bylaws, by contract, as a matter of law, or otherwise, or under any power that the Company may have to indemnify them or hold them harmless.

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: process that determines who shall rule and govern in the county. Id. at 469-70, 73 S.Ct. 809. Defendants claim that these cases apply only where the state has provided for a direct primary, whereas New York has opted for an indirect delegate primary election followed by a convention at which those delegates vote on the nomination. This variation in the process of public choice does not release the State from its First Amendment obligations. The animating principle in Classic and Terry is that constitutional protection extends to each State-created or State-endorsed “integral part of the election machinery,” not merely to one particular kind of primary election. Classic, 313 U.S. at 318, 61 S.Ct. 1031; see also Terry, 345 U.S. at 469, 73 S.Ct. 809; Bullock, 405 U.S. at 146, 92 S.Ct. 849 (<HOLDING>). Consistent with that view, we previously held Options: A. recognizing that electoral restrictions that affect a political partys ability to perform its primary functions organizing and developing recruiting supporters choosing a candidate and voting for that candidate in a general election can constitute severe first amendment burdens B. holding that it violated the first amendment to prohibit announcement of views on disputed legal and political issues by candidates for judicial election C. holding that ohio election law forbidding all anonymous political leafletting violated the first amendment but noting that the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct D. holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment E. holding that primary election ballot filing fee violated fourteenth amendment and noting that the primary election may be more crucial than the general election in certain parts of texas

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that primary election ballot filing fee violated fourteenth amendment and noting that the primary election may be more crucial than the general election in certain parts of texas
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 record and orally agreed to because the hearing was held “at a hotel ... where [they were] without the usual secretarial support available, that is [they had] no word processors. [They had] no typists.” Id. Immediately before asking for the plaintiff’s oral acceptance of the settlement agreement’s terms, the Administrative Judge stated, “This settlement agreement will take effect on October 26, 1994.” Id. at 5. The hearing was held on October 26, 1994. Such a clear statement that the settlement agreement takes effect on the day of the hearing belies an interpretation that a settlement was still days away. After the Administrative Judge asked her if she accepted, the plaintiff answered, “I do accept.” Id. See Fulgence v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 662 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Given the express language of the settlement Options: A. holding that absent a factual basis rendering it invalid an oral agreement to settle a title vii claim is enforceable against a plaintiff B. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original C. holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only with the existence of the alleged oral contract D. holding that an arbitration agreement that was invalid due to unconscionability was not enforceable E. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that absent a factual basis rendering it invalid an oral agreement to settle a title vii claim is enforceable against a plaintiff
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: v. Cuffley, 112 F.3d 1332, 1337 (8th Cir.1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’ ” Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300, 118 S.Ct. 1257, 140 L.Ed.2d 406 (1998) (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-581, 105 S.Ct. 3325, 87 L.Ed.2d 409 (1985)). We conclude the NYPSC’s challenge to the FCC’s order is not ripe for review. The order only suggests the FCC, if faced with the precise issue, would preempt fixed VoIP services. Nonetheless, the order does not purport to actually do so and until that day comes it is only a mere prediction. See U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 594 (D.C.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, as we noted, the FCC has since Options: A. holding that epa regions policy statement does not constitute final agency action because it does not compel action B. holding fda seizure action did not constitute final agency action C. holding that ftc issuance of a complaint meets the apa definition of order and therefore is agency action even if not final agency action D. holding order granting a new trial is not a final appealable order because it does not terminate the action or any of the claims or parties in the action E. holding a general prediction set forth in order does not constitute final agency action

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a general prediction set forth in order does not constitute final agency action
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: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in the event of a Change in Control, the vesting and payment of the Option shall be governed by the provisions of the Plan regarding a Change in Control, which are incorporated herein by reference.

assistant: Change In Control
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: 40 Va.App. 20, 24, 577 S.E.2d 514, 516 (2003) (“Test results from a breath or blood test are not necessary or required to prove driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”). The absence of the BAC test results would require dismissal only if the Commonwealth had prosecuted Cutright solely for violating subsection (i) of Code § 18.2-266, the “ ‘per se’ statute” predicating guilt on blood alcohol content alone. Kehl v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 602, 605, 426 S.E.2d 127, 129 (1993). Dismissal of a subsection (ii) DUI charge may be appropriate in cases involving an outright failure of the Commonwealth to provide any independent testing of any kind despite a statutory requirement that it do so. See, e.g., Shoemaker v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 61, 64, 441 S.E.2d 354, 356 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Kemp v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 360, 365-66, Options: A. holding that in considering dismissal of an appeal the court should exercise discretion to determine whether dismissal is appropriate in the circumstances presented by the case B. holding that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiff failed to name each of the persons alleged to have violated the appropriate standard of care C. holding dismissal appropriate where commonwealth failed to take further action when sample was returned unopened and marked refused by lab selected by defendant D. holding that bankruptcy courts order was final where is was labeled as a final judgment and was clearly intended to serve as denial of relief sought the order determined the substantive rights at issue there was no indication in the record that the court intended to take further action and no party argued that any further action by the court was to occur E. holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order

assistant: The best answer is C. holding dismissal appropriate where commonwealth failed to take further action when sample was returned unopened and marked refused by lab selected by 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the Seller’s knowledge, no taxes or special assessments of any kind (special, bond or otherwise) are or have been levied with respect to the Property, or any portion thereof, which are outstanding or unpaid, other than amounts not yet due and payable, and no such assessments or levies are pending or threatened. True and complete copies of the real estate tax bills for the Property for the past three (3) years have been delivered to Purchaser. Seller has not received any written notice of, and has no knowledge of, any proposed or pending increase in the assessed valuation or rate of taxation of any or all of the Property from that reflected on such real estate tax bills. No Tax Proceedings are currently pending or subject to appeal or will be currently pending or subject to appeal as of the Closing Date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Pursuant to Article 20 of the Plan, the Committee shall have the power and right to deduct or withhold, or require the Grantee to remit to the Company, an amount sufficient to satisfy any federal, state and local taxes (including the Grantee’s FICA obligations) required by law to be withheld with respect to this Award. The Committee may condition the delivery of Shares upon the Grantee’s satisfaction of such withholding obligations. The Grantee may elect to satisfy all or part of such withholding requirement by tendering previously-owned Shares or by having the Company withhold Shares having a Fair Market Value equal to the minimum statutory withholding (based on minimum statutory withholding rates for federal, state and local tax purposes, as applicable, including payroll taxes) that could be imposed on the transaction, and, to the extent the Committee so permits, amounts in excess of the minimum statutory withholding to the extent it would not result in additional accounting expense.

assistant: Tax Withholdings
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) (a) Except as expressly provided in Section 11.6 and otherwise to the extent that this Agreement expressly provides for payments to be allocated to a particular Lender or to the Lenders under a particular Facility, if any Lender (a “ Benefited Lender ”) shall, at any time after the Loans and other amounts payable hereunder shall immediately become due and payable pursuant to Section 9, receive any payment of all or part of the Obligations owing to it, or receive any collateral in respect thereof (whether voluntarily or involuntarily, by set-off, pursuant to events or proceedings of the nature referred to in Section 9(f), or otherwise), in a greater proportion than any such payment to or collateral received by any other Lender, if any, in respect of the Obligations owing to such other Lender, such Benefited Lender shall purchase for cash from the other Lenders a participating interest in such portion of the Obligations owing to each such other Lender, or shall provide such other Lenders with the benefits of any such collateral, as shall be necessary to cause such Benefited Lender to share the excess payment or benefits of such collateral ratably with each of the Lenders; provided , however , that if all or any portion of such excess payment or benefits is thereafter recovered from such Benefited Lender, such purchase shall be rescinded, and the purchase price and benefits returned, to the extent of such recovery, but without interest.

assistant: Adjustments
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: 435, 442 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.2001), Johnston v. Henson (In re Henson), 197 B.R. 299, 302-303 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1996), and Schmitt v. Eubanks (In re Schmitt), 197 B.R. 312, 316 (Bankr.W.D.Ark.1996), with McKinnis v. McKinnis (In re McKinnis), 287 B.R. 245, 257 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.2002), McCracken v. LaRue (In re LaRue), 204 B.R. 531, 535-536 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1997), Belcher v. Owens (In re Owens), 191 B.R. 669, 674 (Bankr.E.D.Ky.1996), Barstow v. Finaly (In re Finaly), 190 B.R. 312, 315 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1995), and Stegall v. Stegall (In re Stegall), 188 B.R. 597, 598 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1995). 1. Section 52 F.3d 192, 200 (observing that “Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code in 1994 to allow exemptions from discharge for all obligations incurred as a result of a divorce decree”); Osborne, 262 B.R. at 445 (<HOLDING>); Salerno v. Crawford (In re Crawford), 236 Options: A. holding that pay on death accounts were not part of the bankruptcy estate under 541 because under kansas law debtor had no property interest in the accounts until the death of the owner B. holding that debtors liability for payment of the balance owing on three joint credit card accounts assumed by the debtor under a marital dissolution agreement with his former spouse were nondischargeable under 523a15 C. holding nondischargeable a debtors obligation to his former spouse under a divorce decree to assume liability for two joint debts to a third party and stating that 523a15 is intended to cover divorcerelated debts such as those in property settlement agreements D. holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable E. holding that a cause of action exists under 523a15 by which a debtors own former divorce attorneys might except from discharge the debtors contractual obligation to them

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that debtors liability for payment of the balance owing on three joint credit card accounts assumed by the debtor under a marital dissolution agreement with his former spouse were nondischargeable under 523a15
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: Neither the execution of this Agreement by the Company, nor the issuance, offering or sale of the Placement Shares, nor the consummation by the Company of any of the transactions contemplated herein and therein, nor the compliance by the Company with the terms and provisions hereof and thereof will conflict with, or will result in a breach of, any of the terms and provisions of, or has constituted or will constitute a default under, or has resulted in or will result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or encumbrance upon any property or assets of the Company pursuant to the terms of any contract or other agreement to which the Company is a party or to which any of the property or assets of the Company is subject, except (i) such conflicts, breaches or defaults as may have been waived and (ii) such conflicts, breaches, defaults, liens, charges or encumbrances that would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; nor will such action result (x) in any violation of the provisions of the certificate of incorporation or bylaws of the Company, or (y) in any material violation of the provisions of any statute or any order, rule or regulation applicable to the Company or of any court or of any federal, state or other regulatory authority or other government body having jurisdiction over the Company, except where such violation would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY (WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT OR ANY OTHER THEORY). EACH PARTY HERETO (A) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE OR OTHER AGENT (INCLUDING ANY ATTORNEY) OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT AND THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: explaining: "[A]s long as you could liquidate any company ... and somebody can embezzle at will as long as the liquidated value that they have in the company is greater than what they took, there is a zero embezzlement. I question that.” 4 . See, e.g., United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 399-401 (4th Cir.2002); United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402-06 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 92 n. 6 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1393 n. * (4th Cir.1992) (en banc); United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 495-96 (4th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 185-86 (4th Cir.1992) (enforcing a waiver that precluded the defendant from appealing certain convictions); cf. United States v. Williams, 29 F.3d 172, 174-75 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 5 . To whatever extent appeal waivers can be Options: A. holding a defendant who pleads guilty without raising a double jeopardy issue has waived his right to appeal that issue B. holding defendants failure to object to the drug quantity assessment in the presentence report at sentencing was a waiver of the issue on appeal C. holding that when a district court determines drug quantity for the purpose of sentencing a defendant convicted of participating in a drugtrafficking conspiracy the court is required to make an individualized finding as to drug amounts attributable to or foreseeable by that defendant D. holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade E. holding that a defendant who stipulated his drug amounts prior to sentencing waived his right to appeal on the issue of the drug amounts

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a defendant who stipulated his drug amounts prior to sentencing waived his right to appeal on the issue of the drug amounts
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 execution, delivery and performance by the Company of this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents to which it is a party, the issuance of the Exchange Securities and the consummation by it of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby do not and will not: (i) conflict with or violate any provision of the Company’s or any Subsidiary’s certificate or certificates of incorporation, bylaws or other organizational or charter documents, (ii) conflict with, or constitute a default (or an event that with notice or lapse of time or both would become a default) under, result in the creation of any options, contracts, agreements, liens, security interests, or other encumbrances (“ Liens ”) upon any of the properties or assets of the Company or any Subsidiary, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation (with or without notice, lapse of time or both) of, any agreement, credit facility, debt or other instrument (evidencing a Company or Subsidiary debt or otherwise) or other understanding to which the Company or any Subsidiary is a party or by which any property or asset of the Company or any Subsidiary is bound or affected, or (iii) subject to the Required Approvals, conflict with or result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment, injunction, decree or other restriction of any court or governmental authority to which the Company or a Subsidiary is subject (including federal and state securities laws and regulations), or by which any property or asset of the Company or a Subsidiary is bound or affected; except in the case of each of clauses (ii) and (iii), such as could not have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If a court of competent jurisdiction should rule that any provision of this Release is invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such ruling shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any other provision thereof, and this Release shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.

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: techniques could have widely disparate results. For example, the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that Daubert overruled the per se rule excluding polygraph evidence. See United States v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225, 228 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428, 431-34 (5th Cir.1995). As a result, each federal district court will need to consider the admissibility of polygraph evidence anew each time it is raised. While some argue that this would ensure that the courts have the flexibility to change as science evolves, this practice will also lead to greater variation in decisions at the district court level that may not be correctable at the appellate level under an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Joiner, 522 U.S. at 142-43, 118 S.Ct. 512 (<HOLDING>). In contrast, under the Frye prong of the Options: A. holding that appellate courts should review district court determinations of the adequacy of damage awards under an abuse of discretion standard B. holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion C. holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion D. holding that rule 702 admissibility determinations are reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard E. holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rule 702 admissibility determinations are reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard
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: opposite “rails” of the ladder. Id. at 965. The order of the chemical bases is what provides the informational content of the DNA. Id. Everyone’s nuclear DNA can be considered unique, with the exception of identical twins. Id. 7 . In nuclear DNA, there are three billion base pairs of nucleotides, where in the smaller, circular mtDNA, there are only approximately sixteen and a half thousand nucleotide bases. 8 . The DNA is extracted, purified, amplified, and sequenced. 9 . The available database of mtDNA sequences, to which mtDNA profiles are compared to identify whether a particular profile commonly occurs within the population, is relatively small when compared to the database compiled for nuclear DNA profiles. Scott, 33 S.W.3d at 757. In order to tell how rare a mtDNA sequence 2001) (<HOLDING>); State v. Pappas, 256 Conn. 854, 776 A.2d Options: A. holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence B. holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence C. holding science of mtdna sequencing adequately proven at trial D. holding that reliance must be proven by some evidence E. holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a frye hearing because there was general acceptance in the scientific community of the particular science at issue at the time of the defendants 1995 trial

assistant: The best answer is C. holding science of mtdna sequencing adequately proven at trial
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: money or property utilized in the illegal sale of controlled substances. That section provides, in pertinent part: “(a) The following are subject to forfeiture: “(1) All controlled substances ... acquired in violation of any law of this state; “(2) All raw materials, products, and equipment of any kind which are used or intended for use for the manufacturing, ... processing, delivering, importing or exporting any controlled substance in violation of any law of this state; “(4) All moneys ... furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of any law of this state; all proceeds traceable to such an exchange; and all moneys ... used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of any law of this st So.2d 151 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (<HOLDING>); Adams v. State ex rel. Whetstone, supra Options: A. holding that forfeiture proceedings instituted eight months after the seizure of property failed to meet the promptness requirement B. holding that later colloquy that took place between defendant and trial court concerning defendants decision to waive counsel did not cure earlier failure by court to fulfill requirements of nc gen stat 15a1242 because it did not take place until first day of defendants sentencing proceeding more than five months after defendant was permitted to proceed without assistance of counsel and approximately two months after defendant proceeding pro se pleaded guilty to murder C. holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court D. holding that a forfeiture proceeding instituted four weeks after seizure met the promptness requirement of the statute E. holding that forfeiture proceeding instituted more than seven months after property was seized did not meet the promptness requirement of 202 93c

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that forfeiture proceeding instituted more than seven months after property was seized did not meet the promptness requirement of 202 93c
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 Letter Agreement may not be amended or otherwise modified without the prior written consent of CF Corp and each Sponsor. Any such amendment shall be subject to the Company’s written consent to the extent required under the Merger Agreement. This Letter Agreement constitutes the sole agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings and statements, written or oral, between each Sponsor or any of its Affiliates, on the one hand, and CF Corp or any of its Affiliates, on the other, with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby (other than the Merger Agreement, the Information Letter Agreements, the Forward Purchase Agreements, the Equity Commitment Letters, the Voting Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, among the Company, FNF, BilCar, LLC, CFS Holdings (Cayman), L.P. and the other shareholders party thereto (the “ Voting Agreement ”) and the other agreements expressly referred to herein or therein as being entered into in connection with the Merger 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: During the Employment Period, the Annual Base Salary shall be reviewed at least annually, beginning no more than 12 months after the Executive’s last salary review. The Annual Base Salary shall be paid at such intervals as the Company pays executive salaries generally. During the Employment Period, the Annual Base Salary shall be reviewed at least annually, beginning no more than 12 months after the last salary increase awarded to the Executive prior to the Effective Date. Any increase in the Annual Base Salary shall not serve to limit or reduce any other obligation to the Executive under this Agreement. The Annual Base Salary shall not be reduced after any such increase and the term “Annual Base Salary” shall refer to the Annual Base Salary as so increased.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the crossed-out rate shown for rooms is based on the third highest current price of the supplier for your product or service with the same booking conditions in a 30-day window around your check-in date ( 15 days before and 15 days after check-in date ; if less than 15 days are between today and the check-in date , we will use the corresponding number of days after the check-in date to result in a 30-day total ) .

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: performance. See Pietri v. State, 885 So.2d 245, 256 (Fla.2004) (“[A] court considering a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel ‘need not make a specific ruling on the performance component of the test when it is clear that the prejudice component is not satisfied.’ ”) (quoting Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So.2d 927, 932 (Fla.1986)). Accordingly, we deny relief. III. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Anthony also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, raising four claims. The first of these claims contains several subparts. However, most of these issues are procedurally barred or legally insufficient, and therefore we deny them without discussion. Other claims present merely eonclusory arguments insufficient to state an issue. See Asay v. Moore, 828 So.2d 985, 990 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>); Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1069 Options: A. holding that the postconviction court erred in finding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim proeedurally barred because the courts opinion did not comment specifically on the ineffective counsel argument and the overall holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jurys verdict could not be viewed as an adjudication on the merits of the ineffective assistance claim B. recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel C. holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate D. holding a claim proce durally barred because it was insufficiently pled as the petitioner failed to phrase the argument as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel E. holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a claim proce durally barred because it was insufficiently pled as the petitioner failed to phrase the argument as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
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: penal amount of the bond. The performance bond expressly limits the surety’s liability to the penal amount: “in no event shall the aggregate liability of the Surety exceed the amount of this bond.” 2 CP at 602. Construing similar language, the California Supreme Court held that the penal amount caps the surety’s liability for attorney fees as well as other damages. “ ‘[U]nder the rule that a surety on a bond is not liable beyond the penalty named therein, the surety is not liable for attorney’s fees in excess of the penalty named.’ ” Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm’n, 216 Cal. 40, 50, 13 P.2d 699 (1932) (quoting 50 C.J.S. § 149, at 92); see also T&R Painting Constr., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 23 Cal. App. 4th 738, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 199, 203 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Lawrence Tractor Co. v. Carlisle Ins. Co., Options: A. holding that obligee can recover from surety attorneys fees that are provided for in obligees subcontract so long as the total recovery against the surety does not exceed the penal amount of the bond B. holding that obligee may recover attorney fees as provided in subcontract so long as total recovery does not exceed penal amount of the bond C. holding that the obligee may recover attorney fees as an element of damages only up to the limit of the penal amount of the bond D. holding that the defendant was only permitted to recover attorney fees as an item of special damages with respect to the underlying action in which the defendant was sued and was not permitted to recover attorney fees incurred in the malpractice portion of the case as damages E. holding that recovery of attorney fees is limited to penal amount of the bond absent contractual provision to the contrary

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that obligee may recover attorney fees as provided in subcontract so long as total recovery does not exceed penal amount of the bond