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: see also Kinnard v. United States, 313 F.3d 933, 935 (6th Cir.2002) (explaining that, when analyzing whether a defendant was prejudiced by his attorney’s performance, “it is necessary to determine if the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable; a court should not focus the analysis on the outcome”) (citing Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993)). Whether an error actually prejudiced a defendant is weighed against the “totality of the evidence before the judge or jury.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A verdict “only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support.” Id. at 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Odem v. Hopkins, 382 F.3d 846, 851-52 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bavers, 787 F.2d 1022, 1030 Options: A. holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt B. holding stricklands prejudice prong was not met because of overwhelming evidence of guilt C. holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt D. holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt E. holding that trial courts witness interrogation did not cause defendant prejudice when there was already overwhelming evidence showing defendants guilt

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt
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: careful composition of the agreed upon statement dampens our concerns, prevented the government counsel from making the kind of self aggrandizing speech we found objectionable in Korey, and helped cure the improper line of questioning. In any event, after a careful review, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Jimenez’s motion for a mistrial. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (“[A] criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor’s comments standing alone, for the statements or conduct must be viewed in context; only by so doing can it be determined whether the prosecutor’s conduct affected the fairness of the trial.”); United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1267 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1067, 115 S.Ct. 1699, Options: A. holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions B. holding that a thirtyminute delay in providing curative instructions to a jury for improper conduct did not result in prejudice against the defendant C. recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion D. holding that the district courts curative instructions cured the governments truly improper and unfortunate comments E. recognizing that a curative instruction may make it highly unlikely that improper comments misled the jury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the district courts curative instructions cured the governments truly improper and unfortunate comments
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 Notice is awarded pursuant to and is subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Plan (including any amendments thereto), and these Terms and Conditions. In the event of a conflict between these Terms and Conditions, the Plan and the Notice, the Plan provisions will control. The term “ you ” and “ your ” refer to the Awardee named in the Notice. Capitalized terms that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan or the Notice.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall reimburse the lead Buyer for all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by it or its affiliates in connection with the structuring, documentation, negotiation and closing of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents (including, without limitation, as applicable, all reasonable legal fees of outside counsel and disbursements of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, counsel to the lead Buyer, any other reasonable fees and expenses in connection with the structuring, documentation, negotiation and closing of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents and due diligence and regulatory filings in connection therewith) (the “ Transaction Expenses ”). At the Closing the Company shall reimburse Kelley Drye & Warren LLP for all Transaction Expenses. The Company shall promptly reimburse Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on demand for all Transaction Expenses not invoiced to the Company on or prior to the Closing Date. The Company shall be responsible for the payment of any placement agent’s fees, financial advisory fees, transfer agent fees, DTC (as defined below) fees or broker’s commissions (other than for Persons engaged by any Buyer) relating to or arising out of the transactions contemplated hereby (including, without limitation, any fees or commissions payable to the Placement Agent, who is the Company’s sole placement agent in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement). The Company shall pay, and hold each Buyer harmless against, any liability, loss or expense (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket expenses) arising in connection with any claim relating to any such payment. Except as otherwise set forth in the Transaction Documents, each party to this Agreement shall bear its own expenses in connection with the sale of the Securities to the Buyers.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at an unspecified date in November of 1999. There are no facts alleged in the complaint that require an inference of an earlier accrual date. As of that time, then, the plaintiff should have figured out that the defendants’ rodomontade about the school’s capabilities and the imminence of accreditation was quite likely pie in the sky. On that basis, the plaintiff should have commenced his action no later than November of 2002 (the precise date is inconsequential, for reasons that shortly will become apparent). Because this action was not docketed until June 9, 2003, a cursory glance would appear to validate the defendants’ assertion that the statute of limitations had run. See, e.g., Jolicoeur v. S. New Engl. Sch. of Law, 104 Fed.Appx. 745, 746-47 (1st Cir.2004) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Appearances sometimes are deceiving-— and Options: A. recognizing similar duties B. holding a similar action filed by one of the plaintiffs classmates on june 18 2003 to be timebarred C. holding plaintiffs claims moot on similar grounds D. holding that plaintiffs allegations related to denial of overtime were discrete acts timebarred and not individually actionable E. holding that where the plaintiffs allegations concerning a hostile work environment consist of facts that occurred more than one year before the filing of the complaint such a claim is timebarred

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a similar action filed by one of the plaintiffs classmates on june 18 2003 to be timebarred
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 CGG waived its statute of limitations affirmative defense by failing to raise it in response to Statom's motion for partial summary judgment. In each of these cases, summary judgment was ordered against the defendant, and the defendant waived its affirmative defenses by failing to raise the defenses in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Flynn, 403 N.E.2d at 1126 (reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, and noting that, on remand, the defendants could not argue their affirmative defenses because they had waived the affirmative defenses by failing to argue them in response to the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment); FI & G Ortho, 823 N.E.2d at 731 (<HOLDING>); Daniels, 678 N.E.2d at 430 (holding that the Options: A. holding state is required to raise procedural bar as affirmative defense or it is waived B. holding that defendant does not waive an affirmative defense if defendant raises it at a pragmatically sufficient time such as summary judgment and the defendants failure raise the affirmative defense in its answer did not cause the plaintiff prejudice C. holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived D. holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second E. holding that the defendants waived their affirmative defense of unenforceability by failing to raise the defense in response to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the defendants waived their affirmative defense of unenforceability by failing to raise the defense in response to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted
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 issuance by an Issuing Bank of any amendment, supplement or other modification to any Letter of Credit issued by such Issuing Bank shall be subject to the same conditions applicable under this Agreement to the issuance of new Letters of Credit (including, without limitation, that the request therefor be made through the applicable Issuing Bank and the Administrative Agent), and no such amendment, supplement or other modification shall be issued unless either (i) the respective Letter of Credit affected thereby would have complied with such conditions had it originally been issued hereunder in such amended, supplemented or modified form or (ii) the Administrative Agent and the applicable Revolving Lenders, if any, required by Section 12.6. shall have consented thereto. In connection with any such amendment, supplement or other modification, the Borrower shall pay the fees, if any, payable under the last sentence of Section 3.5. (c).

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: The High Court has explicitly affirmed that voir dire is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding, during which the defendant has a constitutional right to be present. Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873, 109 S.Ct. 2237, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989) (citing Lewis, supra at 374,13 S.Ct. 136). The determination that voir dire is a critical stage of trial flows directly from the recognition that a defendant’s “life or liberty may depend upon the aid which, by his personal presence, he may give to counsel and to the court and triers in the selection of jurors.” Lewis, supra at 373, 13 S.Ct. 136. However, certain decisions regarding the conduct of voir dire are properly made by counsel alone. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242, 128 S.Ct. 1765, 170 L.Ed.2d 616 (2009[2008]) (<HOLDING>). The High Court has also stated: The mere Options: A. holding that district courts delegation of voir dire to magistrate judge is inconsistent with 28 usc 636b3 where defendant does not consent B. holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice C. holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire D. holding that defense counsel may decide whether to consent to voir dire proceedings before a federal magistrate E. holding that voir dire of jury may be delegated to magistrate judge where defendant consents to the delegation because the district court retains the ultimate decision on empaneling the jury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defense counsel may decide whether to consent to voir dire proceedings before a federal magistrate
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: That portion of the then-current Operating Budget and the Capital Budget approved by the Company hereunder shall constitute authorization for the Operator to perform, or cause to be performed, the Services contemplated therein. The Operator and Operator Personnel are only authorized to expend the following amounts in connection with its performance of the Services: (a) any approved amounts under the Operating Budget and the Capital Budget and (b) such additional expenditures as the Operator determines, in its reasonable judgment, are necessary because of an Emergency or to assure the continued ordinary course operation of the applicable Terminal and its business. The Operator or Operator Personnel, as applicable, shall obtain the Company’s approval prior to the expenditure of any amounts not included in those amounts described in clauses (a) and (b) of the immediately preceding sentence. Regardless of whether prior approval is required, Operator shall have the duty to notify, or cause to notify, Company as soon as practicable after any Emergency of any expenditures required under (b) above.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we have no obligation or responsibility to , and will not reimburse or refund , you for any trading items , virtual money , or virtual goods lost due to such cancellation , suspension , or termination .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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 signed in any number of counterparts, including by facsimile copies or by electronic scan copies delivered by email, each of which will be deemed an original, with the same effect as if the signatures were upon the same instrument.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not likely” to be able to support herself. It may be true that her testimony, if believed in its entirety, would have been sufficient for a court to find that she was incapable of holding a job. See Allison v. Allison, 160 Md.App. 331, 345, 864 A.2d 191 (2004). On the other hand, her testimony “by no means compelled that conclusion.” Id. The court was entitled to weigh Wife’s testimony in light of the other evidence about her active lifestyle. See Schwartz v. Wagner, 116 Md.App. 720, 725, 698 A.2d 1222 (1997) (noting that prior appellate decision in same case had upheld trial court’s decision to impute income to wife where the wife’s “allegation that she [could not] work long hours because of her health was belied by the fact” that she had endured extensive trave 6, 73 A.3d 1199 (2013) (<HOLDING>). In any event, even if the court had been Options: A. holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex B. holding that defendant adequately indicated to officers that she sought assistance of counsel when she stated that she wanted to call her lawyer and officer testified that request was unambiguous C. holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination D. holding without applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel that the plaintiff who made sworn statements of total disability in a social security disability application and then testified at her deposition that she was not totally disabled failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the ada E. holding that trial court was not required to conclude that wife was disabled for alimony purposes where she testified about her disability and offered documentation of her social security disability benefits but where she produced no medical testimony and where other evidence indicated that she was otherwise active and did not stay in bed all day as she claimed

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that trial court was not required to conclude that wife was disabled for alimony purposes where she testified about her disability and offered documentation of her social security disability benefits but where she produced no medical testimony and where other evidence indicated that she was otherwise active and did not stay in bed all day as she claimed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: F.2d at 797. We have also held, however, that an appellant’s failure to obtain a stay before appealing a bankruptcy court’s award of fees does not necessarily render the appeal equitably moot. See In re Cascade Roads, Inc., 34 F.3d 756 (9th Cir.1994); In re Spirtos, 992 F.2d 1004 (9th Cir.1993); In re International Envtl. Dynamics, Inc., 718 F.2d 322 (9th Cir.1983). In International Environmental Dynamics, even though the appellant failed to obtain a stay before appealing the bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtor’s counsel attorney fees, we held that the appeal was not equitably moot because the counsel was a party before the bankruptcy court and knew the appellant contested the fee award. See International Envtl. Dynamics, 718 F.2d at 326; see also Cascade Roads, 34 F.3d at 761 (<HOLDING>); Spirtos, 992 F.2d at 1006-07 (same). In re Options: A. holding that even though the appeal was not moot because effective relief was possible it was inequitable to require that the debtors counsel disgorge fees and costs awarded by the bankruptcy court B. holding that consideration of a moot case was not required when there was no award of attorneys fees that would be affected by appellate review and the issue has not been preserved for appeal C. holding that an assignment was recognized by the government because the government issued a check made payable to the assignee as payment under the contract D. holding that an appeal was not equitably moot because the person who was issued the money was a party and was aware when the payment was made that the award would be appealed E. holding that a challenge to the disbursement of attorneys fees was not equitably moot

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an appeal was not equitably moot because the person who was issued the money was a party and was aware when the payment was made that the award would be appealed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that any Law requires the Paying Party to withhold taxes with respect to any payment to be made by the Paying Party pursuant to this Agreement, the Paying Party will notify the non-Paying Party of such withholding requirement prior to making the payment to the non-Paying Party and provide such assistance to the non-Paying Party, including the provision of such standard documentation as may be required by a tax authority, as may be reasonably necessary in the non-Paying Party’s efforts to claim an exemption from or reduction of such taxes. The Paying Party will, in accordance with such Law withhold taxes from the amount due, remit such taxes to the appropriate tax authority, and furnish the non-Paying Party with proof of payment of such taxes within […***…] following the payment. If taxes are paid to a tax authority, the Paying Party shall provide reasonable assistance to the non-Paying Party to obtain a refund of taxes withheld, or obtain a credit with respect to taxes paid.

assistant: 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you and niantic agree that any dispute , claim , or controversy arising out of or relating to these terms or the breach , termination , enforcement , interpretation , or validity thereof or the use of the services or content ( collectively , `` disputes '' ) will be settled by binding arbitration , except that each party retains the right : ( a ) to bring an individual action in small claims court and ( b ) to seek injunctive or other equitable relief in a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent the actual or threatened infringement , misappropriation , or violation of a party 's copyrights , trademarks , trade secrets , patents , or other intellectual property rights ( the action described in this clause ( b ) , an `` ip protection action '' ) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice herein required or permitted to be given shall be in writing and shall be deemed effectively given: (a) upon personal delivery to the party notified, (b) when sent by confirmed facsimile if sent during normal business hours of the recipient, if not, then on the next business day, (c) five days after having been sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or (d) one day after deposit with a nationally recognized overnight courier, specifying next day delivery, with written verification of receipt. All communications shall be sent to the Borrower at: CubeScape, Inc., 1026 16 th Avenue South, Nashville, Tennessee, facsimile number (312) 589-6765 and to the Holder at the address and facsimile number set forth on the signature page of this Note, or at such other address as the Borrower or the Holder may designate by ten (10) days advance written notice to the other parties hereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that your employment with the Company or an Affiliate terminates due to your death, your Performance Shares will be due and payable in Shares (or cash at a value equal to the Closing Price on the date of your death, if so determined by the Committee). Any payment will be made at the time specified in Section 8.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: As a result, we have considered issues that were addressed by the Commission after being presented by someone other than the petitioner. E.g., Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 779 F.2d 702, 707 (D.C.Cir. 1985) (considering issue raised before the Commission by another party); Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 465 F.2d 519, 523-24 (D.C.Cir. 1972) (considering issue raised by dissenting commissioners). But petitioner cites no case in which we held that the mere fact that the Commission addressed an issue was sufficient to preserve the issue for judicial review. Indeed, we have rejected such arguments in analogous contexts. Cf. Local 900 Int’l Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers v. NLRB, 727 F.2d 1184, 1191 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Parsippany Hotel, 99 F.3d at 418 (holding Options: A. holding that issue raised before alj but not nlrb was not preserved B. holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court C. holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency D. holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal E. holding that discussion of an issue by the nlrb did not necessarily prove compliance with 10e of the nlra requiring that issues be raised before the board in order to obtain judicial review of such

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that discussion of an issue by the nlrb did not necessarily prove compliance with 10e of the nlra requiring that issues be raised before the board in order to obtain judicial review of such
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: will exist whenever a defendant is served within the United States. See Lorelei Corp. v. County of Guadalupe, 940 F.2d 717, 719 (1st Cir.1991) ("[Sjufficient contacts exist whenever the defendant is served within the sovereign territory of the United States.”). If that is the case, proper service according to § 1132(e)(2) will always establish personal jurisdiction, because the defendant must be in the United States to be properly served under § 1132(e)(2). See Reimer Express, 230 F.3d at 941 ("The RICO and ERISA service of process provisions state that service may be made in 'any district,’ which indicates that Congress authorized service only in the judicial districts of the United States and not world-wide.”); see also Stauffacher v. Bennett, 969 F.2d 455, 460-61 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Cf. Omni Capital, 484 U.S. at 106, 108 Options: A. holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service B. holding that ricos nationwide service of process provision did not authorize service outside the united states C. recognizing that although provision of municipal service is not fundamental right inequitable provision of that service is subject to equal protection analysis D. holding that 1132e2 allows for nationwide service of process and thus jurisdiction and that the nationwide service of process provision comports with the constitution E. holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that ricos nationwide service of process provision did not authorize service outside the united states
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: attached first in the criminal action. In 405, the Ninth Circuit rom his criminal conviction if jeopardy first attached in the civil forfeiture action against his Mercedes. It is well-settled that jeopardy attaches in a criminal case when the court accepts a defendant’s guilty plea, a jury is empaneled for trial, or the first witness is sworn in a bench trial. See United States v. Martin Linen Supply Company, 430 U.S. 564, 569, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 1353, 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977). In contrast to the well-settled rule for criminal cases, as of this date, the Ninth Circuit has not made a clear statement as to the time when jeopardy attaches in a civil forfeiture case. Several decisions, however, provide guidance on this question. See United States v. Kearns, 61 F.3d 1422, 1428 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Barton, 46 F.3d 51, 52 (9th Options: A. holding that where a conviction is reversed after trial the double jeopardy clause does not bar a government appeal that if successful would only reinstate the conviction and would not subject defendant to a second trial B. holding that conviction did not violate double jeopardy where jury was empaneled and sworn in criminal trial before defendant filed answer to forfeiture complaint C. holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy D. holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court E. holding that conviction of and punishment for both the underlying predicate offense and continuing criminal enterprise does not violate double jeopardy

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that conviction did not violate double jeopardy where jury was empaneled and sworn in criminal trial before defendant filed answer to forfeiture complaint
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall initially pay the Employee a base salary at the rate of $500,000.00 per year (the “Base Salary”). All salary shall be paid in accordance with the Company's regular payroll schedule and subject to required withholdings.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: From time to time, at the reasonable request of Bearing and without further consideration, prior to the termination of this Agreement, Stockholder shall execute and deliver such reasonable additional documents and take all such further reasonable action as may be reasonably required to consummate and make effective, in the most expeditious manner practicable, the transactions contemplated by 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: the situation did not demand a protracted investigation: the of fícers were dealing with one car and two individuals. And unlike in Sharpe and Owens, the defendants did absolutely nothing to contribute to the delay. They answered the officers’ questions when asked, and they alighted from the car when so ordered. Finally, unlike in Flowers, there was no danger of an immediate threat of harm to another person that would necessitate a particularly long or intrusive search. Candidly, most of the opinions involving time and duration challenges to car stops sustain the actions of the police under various rationale, but there must be limits. One can pretend that the stop is justified as a traffic stop, so long as the car was actually violating the law. One can do what is necessary to lear 4) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Kelly, 329 F.3d 624, 629 Options: A. holding that a police officer speaking to a public official about his concerns over public safety issues is speaking in his capacity as a police officer and not as a citizen B. holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under 1983 because it violates the fourth amendment C. holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment D. holding the act of abandoning his firearm while running from a police officer extinguished his fourth amendment claim E. holding that the trial court had properly granted prices motion for new trial because while the state properly introduced identification testimony from a police officer who was not a witness to the offense it improperly elicited testimony that the witness was in fact a police officer who knew the defendant from working in his neighborhood

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the act of abandoning his firearm while running from a police officer extinguished his fourth amendment claim
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: pleas court and the Superior Court, where she argued primarily that DiMarco, Troxel, and Section 324A were controlling. Appellee also did not assert that she was denied an adequate procedure in which to advance evidence or argument on the policy matters at the heart of the duty decision. In such circumstances, to the extent that Appellee attempts to do so at the present stage of the appellate litigation, those arguments are unpreserved. See In re J.M., 556 Pa. 63, 83 n. 15, 726 A.2d 1041, 1051 n. 15 (1999) (finding waiver of an issue, on the part of one who became an appellee in the Supreme Court, that was not raised before the trial court or the Superior Court where that party was the appellant); accord Commonwealth v. McMullen, 599 Pa. 435, 443 n. 2, 961 A.2d 842, 846 n. 2 (2008) (<HOLDING>). In any event, as a consequence of Appellee’s Options: A. holding that a litigant did not waive a claim because it was the appellee in the intermediate appellate court emphasis added B. holding that an application is pending from the time it is first filed emphasis added C. holding that a federal court has jurisdiction over the question of whether truck was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident emphasis added D. holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added E. holding that the plain meaning of the statutory language a claim refutes the defendants argument that plaintiff must allege that the anticompetitive effect gives rise to his claim emphasis added

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a litigant did not waive a claim because it was the appellee in the intermediate appellate court emphasis added
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: 3 .It is the content of this section that compels the temporary sealing of this memorandum opinion. See United States v. Lentz, 1:01cr150 (E.D.Va.) (sealing orders). 4 . In a memorandum opinion dated August 22, 2005, defendant's motion to suppress the recordings of these telephone calls and to preclude their disclosure to the government’s trial team under either the attorney-client privilege or the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was denied. See United States v. Lentz, v. Blakney, 581 F.2d 1389, 1390 (10th Cir.1978) (stating that "if the exemplars would provide probative and relevant evidence in the case there would seem no merit in the claim of prejudice when questions were asked which brought out the refusal to provide them”); United States v. Franks, 511 F.2d 25, 36 (6th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). 9 . Only one circuit has Options: A. holding that a court may sua sponte dismiss pursuant to rule 41b for failure to comply with a court order B. recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible C. holding that an administrative agency is not subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an order D. recognizing that evidence that defendant refused to comply with the court order to provide a voice exemplar is admissible E. holding that evidence that a polygraph test was offered to or refused by a defendant was not admissible

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that evidence that defendant refused to comply with the court order to provide a voice exemplar is admissible
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Loan Party and each Lender Party hereby acknowledges and agrees that the Administrative Agent and/or its Affiliates from time to time may hold investments in, make other loans to or have other relationships with any of the Loan Parties and their respective Affiliates.

assistant: Disclosures
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: Amended and Restated Global Senior Credit Agreement, dated as of April 14, 2016 (as amended, restated, extended, supplemented or otherwise modified in writing from time to time, the “ Agreement ;” the terms defined therein being used herein as therein defined), among Prologis, L.P. (the “ Company ”), certain Affiliate Borrowers from time to time party thereto, Prologis, Inc., as guarantor, the Lenders from time to time party thereto, Bank of America, N.A., as Global Administrative Agent, U.S. Funding Agent, a U.S. Swing Line Lender, and a U.S. L/C Issuer, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as Euro Funding Agent and Euro Swing Line Lender, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, as Yen Funding Agent and a Yen L/C Issuer.

assistant: 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: This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors of the Placement Agent and of the Company (including any party that acquires the Company or all or substantially all of its assets or merges with the Company). Nothing expressed or mentioned in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to give any person or corporation, other than the parties hereto and parties expressly referred to herein, any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect to this Agreement or any provision hereof. The term "successors" shall not include any purchaser of the Bridge Notes merely by reason of such purchase. No subrogee of a benefited party shall be entitled to any benefits hereunder. Each party hereto disclaims any an intention to impose any fiduciary obligation on any other party by virtue of the arrangements contemplated by this Agreement.

assistant: Successors
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: prosecutor stated: As to count 1 the State must prove 2 elements beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt in order for you to convict the defendant. The first element is that [the victim] was under the age of 12. The evidence that we presented that was the testimony of her mother who testified as to her date of birth and importantly the testimony of [the victim] who you obviously could tell she was a young girl and told her her date of birth was [] so without any evidence contradicting that the State has proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt the first element of the charge. In cases like this, it is always a[sic] one-person’s word against another. In these particular cases — In this particular a. 4th DCA 2006) (same); Smith v. State, 843 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, the first comment, “so without any Options: A. holding that if comment is fairly susceptible of being construed by the jury as a comment on the defendants exercise of his or her right to remain silent it violates the defendants state constitutional right to silence whether comment was introduced in states caseinchief or for impeachment purposes holding that the state may not impeach a defendant with his postarrest or postmiranda silence B. recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence C. holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify D. holding the states comment that nobody testified he wasnt the guy was an impermissible comment on appellants right to remain silent in a case in which the only individual who could have contradicted the states evidence was the appellant E. holding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial based on a comment that the defendant was in prison where the comment provided the jury with little detail

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the states comment that nobody testified he wasnt the guy was an impermissible comment on appellants right to remain silent in a case in which the only individual who could have contradicted the states evidence was the appellant
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: In the event that any provision of this Plan shall be held illegal or invalid for any reason, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Plan, and the Plan shall be construed and enforced as if the illegal or invalid provision had not been included.

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: amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.” Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir.2002). Yet Morrow has explicitly requested “an opportunity to amend the complaint and cure the omissions,” and the court will permit Morrow another opportunity to plead fraud consistent with Rule 9(b). D. Claims for Breach of Contract And Unjust Enrichment The defendants argue that Morrow’s claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment are too vague. In fact, Morrow’s claims are brief, and the complaint states only that “defendants’ actions amount to a breach of contract and/or unjust enrichment.” Morrow’s cu F.3d 132, 144 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Fuller v. Golden Age Fisheries, 14 F.3d 1405, Options: A. recognizing a right to contribution B. holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because claim properly was for contribution C. holding that the flsas remedial scheme is sufficiently comprehensive as to preempt state law with respect to contribution or indemnification claims by employers D. holding that if the party seeking indemnity is held liable in part because of its own negligence common law indemnification is unavailable and the only remedy is contribution E. holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the flsas remedial scheme is sufficiently comprehensive as to preempt state law with respect to contribution or indemnification claims by employers
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: is required to prove; otherwise, there would be too great a risk that a jury, by placing undue emphasis on the affirmative defense, might presume that the government had already met its burden of proof’). Because the sentencing process, even after Apprendi is “no more exacting than the process of establishing guilt,” Patterson’s reasoning applies with full force to Snype’s challenge to the burden of proof assignment in § 3559(c)(3)(A). United States v. Bradshaw, 281 F.3d at 295 (relying on Patterson in holding that “a paradigm that allows the defendant to raise an affirmative defense during the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings, but then shifts the burden of proof to him to establish the defense, does not violate due process”); see also United States v. Brown, 276 F.3d at 932 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Wicks, 132 F.3d 383, 389 Options: A. holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt B. holding that apprendi leaves undisturbed the principle that while the prosecution must indeed prove all the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt the legislation creating the offense can place the burden of proving affirmative defenses on the defendant internal citations omitted C. recognizing congresss power to place burden of proving affirmative defense on defendant as long as state proves all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt D. holding state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt and a scheme that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming a fact upon proof of the other elements of the offense violates due process E. holding due process clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the charged offense and new york law that requires the defendant in a second degree murder prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter when no element of the charged offense is presumed does not violate the due process clause

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that apprendi leaves undisturbed the principle that while the prosecution must indeed prove all the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt the legislation creating the offense can place the burden of proving affirmative defenses on the defendant internal citations omitted