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: and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005); see also Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). We must therefore decide whether Mothershed’s claims fall within the Rook-er-Feldmandoctrine’s narrowed scope. A Under Rooker-Feldman, lower federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions, and state court litigants may therefore only obtain federal review by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. See Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416, 44 S.Ct. 149 (<HOLDING>); Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486-87, 103 S.Ct. 1303 Options: A. holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar B. holding that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that effectively sought review of an indiana state courts decision C. holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case D. holding that the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs complaint to the extent they sought review of the district of columbia court of appeals denial of their petitions E. holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that effectively sought review of an indiana state courts decision
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 right of any party hereto to investigate the affairs of any of the parties hereto and notwithstanding any knowledge of facts determined or determinable by any party hereto pursuant to such investigation or right of investigation or otherwise acquired or learned by any of the parties hereto, each of the parties hereto shall have the right to rely fully upon the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the other party hereto contained in this Agreement and to pursue all rights and remedies in connection therewith. All representations, warranties, covenants and agreements shall survive the Closing and shall expire on December 31, 2018 (the “ Survival Date ”).

assistant: Warranties
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: noted, “ ‘[Removal and preemption are two distinct concepts.’” Dukes, 57 F.3d at 355 (quoting Warner v. Ford Motor Co., 46 F.3d 531, 535 (6th Cir.1995)). The complete preemption doctrine is concerned with a more limited set of state laws, those which fall within the scope of ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme. Thus a state law claim that falls outside the scope of § 1132, even if preempted under § 1144(a), is still governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule and is not removable under the complete preemption doctrine described by the Supreme Court. See Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 64, 107 S.Ct. at 1546-47 (stating that ERISA preemption, without more, does not convert a state law claim into a claim arising under federal law); Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 23-27, 103 S.Ct. at 2853-56 (<HOLDING>); Dukes, 57 F.3d at 355 (noting that state law Options: A. holding that because plaintiffs claim was not displaced by 1132a defendants complete preemption argument fails and district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction B. holding that the economic loss rule does not preclude independent tort claims that fall outside the scope of a breach of contract C. holding that 514a preemption defense will not justify removal unless claim falls within the scope of erisas civil enforcement provision 502 D. holding that preemption under 1144a does not permit removal if the plaintiffs claim does not fall within the scope of 1132a E. holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that preemption under 1144a does not permit removal if the plaintiffs claim does not fall within the scope of 1132a
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: where it has (1) reason to know that the product it markets is likely to be danger ous for the use for which it is supplied; (2) no reason to believe the user will realize its dangerous condition; and (3) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform the user of the facts which make the product dangerous. Kerr v. Koemm, 557 F.Supp. 283 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (citing Young v. Elmira Transit Mix, Inc., 52 A.D.2d 202, 383 N.Y.S.2d 729, 731 (4th Dep’t.1976)). This means that if the danger was sufficiently obvious — so apparent and so clearly within common knowledge— that it would be unreasonable to impose on the manufacturer a duty to warn, there is no liability for failure to warn the user. Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v. Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 A.D.2d 55, 427 N.Y.S.2d 1009 (4th Dep’t.1980) (<HOLDING>). While, in general, the reasonableness of a Options: A. holding that property owner has duty to keep real property in reasonably safe condition for invitees or to warn of any hazard B. holding that there is no necessity to warn a consumer already aware through common knowledge or learning of a specific hazard C. holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through general knowledge D. recognizing common knowledge exception E. recognizing a common knowledge exception

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that there is no necessity to warn a consumer already aware through common knowledge or learning of a specific hazard
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: Except as otherwise provided in Section 5(b), as soon as practicable after the PUs vest (but in all events during the year immediately following the end of the Performance Period), the Company will settle such vested PUs by (i) delivering an amount of cash equal to the Fair Market Value, determined as of the vesting date, of a number of Shares equal to one-half (1/2) of the number of PUs that have vested and (ii) make an appropriate book entry for a number of Shares equal to one-half (1/2) of the number of PUs that have vested. For purposes hereof, the PUs that vest upon a Participant’s termination of Employment shall be settled only upon the Participant’s separation from service within the meaning of Code Section 409A.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information, available to them that “might well elude an untrained person.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273, 122 S.Ct. at 750-51, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690, 694-95, 66 L.Ed.2d 621, 628-29 (1981)). Therefore, “the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level of probable cause” in order, to justify a search incident to an investigative detention. Id. (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)). [¶ 16.] It is undisputed, that the officer in this case had a “specific and articulable suspicion of a violation,” justifying the initial stop. See State v. Vento, 1999 SD 158, ¶ 8, 604 N.W.2d 468, 470. See also SDCL 32- 5, 890 (<HOLDING>). • They were also traveling a known drug Options: A. holding in the context of vehicular searches that the fact that cm agent familiar with the odor of marijuana smelled such an odor emanating from an automobile alone was sufficient to constitute probable cause for a subsequent search for marijuana B. holding that alcohol odor provided probable cause to search vehicle for open container and smell of burnt marijuana justified search of entire vehicle for drugs C. holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper D. holding odor of burnt marijuana and drug dogs hit on car were sufficient to justify search E. holding that because marijuana has a distinct smell the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a vehicle or baggage

assistant: The best answer is D. holding odor of burnt marijuana and drug dogs hit on car were sufficient to justify search
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: maintenance of his criminal record constitutes a deprivation of his protected liberty interest in pursuing his chosen profession. Additionally, the Defendant stresses his presentation of evidence indicating that he has been denied specific employment opportunities. The Court finds these distinctions unpersuasive for several reasons. First, in several of the cases mentioned above, the petitioners unsuccessfully argued that their criminal records foreclosed or impaired their pursuit of various career opportunities. Although those petitioners did not allege the deprivation of a liberty interest by name, they raised the same substantive argument that the Defendant now advances, namely interference with the pursuit of their chosen professions. See, e.g., Friesen, 853 F.2d at 816 (<HOLDING>); Scott, 793 F.2d at 118 (expungement order Options: A. holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion B. holding that expungement constituted an abuse of discretion even though an acquitted attorney alleged harm in terms of employment availability reputation in the community and possible denial of professional licensing C. holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion D. holding that denial of discovery in habeas proceedings is reviewed for abuse of discretion E. holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that expungement constituted an abuse of discretion even though an acquitted attorney alleged harm in terms of employment availability reputation in the community and possible denial of professional licensing
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: considered as having been rendered when the court has pronounced the decree which finally determines the rights of the parties and nothing remains to be done but for the clerk to record the entry of the judgment. The judgment itself is not what may be entered, but is that which is considered and delivered by the court. Even if the judgment may be proven only by the record, yet it derives its force, not from its entry on the record, but from its rendition by the court. See also Tiedman v. Tiedman, 400 Mich. 571, 255 N.W.2d 632, 635 (1977) (stating, in dicta, that a judgment of divorce may be made effective immediately by a judge’s oral statement that includes all the pertinent terms of the divorce); McClure v. H.K Porter Co., 174 Mich.App. 499, 436 N.W.2d 677, 679-80 (1988) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Norton Shores v. Carr, 59 Mich.App. 561, 229 Options: A. holding that the trial courts written order was not the entry of a sentence sufficient to support a determination that a judgment of conviction was entered B. holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment C. holding that a trial courts oral ruling was clearly meant to have immediate effect and not to be effective only when written and entered D. holding that when the courts oral statements in the plea colloquy conflict with the written agreement the courts oral statements control E. holding that oral declarations of mistrial which discharge the jury are unlike other oral decisions by the trial court which are not binding and are subject to change until a final written order or judgment is entered

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a trial courts oral ruling was clearly meant to have immediate effect and not to be effective only when written and entered
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: Except as set forth on Schedule 4.9 attached hereto, the Company shall use the net proceeds from the sale of the Securities hereunder for working capital purposes, including, but not limited to, research and development activities, and shall not use such proceeds: (a) for the redemption of any Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents (other than purchases and redemptions of shares of Common Stock held by employees, officers or directors of the Company in connection with the satisfaction of the exercise price of compensatory awards or the satisfaction of tax withholding obligations) or (b) in violation of FCPA or OFAC regulations.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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 constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between Employee and Blackbaud with respect to all matters pertaining to Employee’s employment and termination, except that nothing herein will be deemed to modify or release any of Employee’s continuing obligations to Blackbaud under the Employment Agreement, or any other confidentiality, trade secret and invention assignment agreement signed by Employee.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: or whether it indicates that compliance with the request for information might be compelled; (7) whether the officer physically touches the person of the citizen; (8) whether an officer's show of authority or exercise of control over an individual impedes that individual's ability to terminate the encounter; (9) the duration of the encounter; and (10) whether the officer retains the citizen's identification or travel documents. Id. (citing People v. Paynter, 955 P.2d 68, 73-75 (Colo.1998)). In addition to these factors, we have considered whether, and under what cireum-stances, a police officer's request for a citizen's identification and subsequent check for outstanding warrants transforms a consensual encounter into an investigatory stop. See Martinez, 200 P.3d at 1058-59 (<HOLDING>); Padgett, 932 P.2d at 814 (holding that the Options: A. holding that defendant was not free to leave when officer directed defendant to stay while he conducted a warrants check B. holding officers had reasonable suspicion to identify passengers and check for outstanding warrants after traffic stop when the officers previously had been notified that car contained named felony parole violator C. holding that the forceable stop at issue was an investigatory stop rather than an arrest D. holding that the defendant had been subjected to an illegal arrest when after detectives requested and did not return his airline ticket and drivers license he was asked to come with the officers from the concourse into an interrogation room approximately 40 feet away where his suitcases were searched E. holding that the police subjected the defendant to an investigatory stop when they directed the de fendant to come out of the bathroom and into a separate room and then ran a clearance check to determine whether the defendant had any outstanding warrants

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the police subjected the defendant to an investigatory stop when they directed the de fendant to come out of the bathroom and into a separate room and then ran a clearance check to determine whether the defendant had any outstanding warrants
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: similar clauses other courts have held to be valid'—is unfair or unconscionable. Moreover, a number of courts have held that when a purchaser has .received a series of confirmatory documents containing an arbitration clause, and fails to object seasonably, the party is deemed to have consented to the clause as a term of its agreement with the seller. See, e.g., Leadertex, Inc. v. Morganton Dyeing & Finishing Corp., 1994 WL 445618 at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. August 17, 1994) (finding an agreement to arbitrate where arbitration clause was contained in seller’s confirmation forms and the buyer had received many of these forms over a six-year period without objecting), affd, 67 F.3d 20 (2nd Cir.1995); Dixie Aluminum Prods. Co., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Int’l Corp., 785 F.Supp. 157, 160-61 (N.D.Ga.1992) (<HOLDING>). Because plaintiff received many of the Options: A. holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession B. holding an arbitration clause contained in confirmations sent to buyer by seller was part of parties course of dealing and therefore part of the contract after buyer had repeated opportunities to object to the clause and had failed to do so C. holding that where buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to 672606 D. holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision E. holding that contract requiring buyer to purchase a fixed quantity of goods that amounted to roughly 6080 of its needs was not unlawful because the agreements contained no exclusive dealing clause and did not require the buyer to purchase any amounts of the defendants product that even approached its requirements

assistant: The best answer is B. holding an arbitration clause contained in confirmations sent to buyer by seller was part of parties course of dealing and therefore part of the contract after buyer had repeated opportunities to object to the clause and had failed to do so
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: an area of regulation in which the responsibility of policing falls principally on the shoulders of the private citizen and private counsel.”). Here, class action is superior to individual lawsuits. Over the relevant time period at Defendant’s ATM machines, there were 46,469 total unique cards used to perform over 127,000 transactions. (Def. Resp. Ex. F-Zerdlow Aff. ¶ 15.) Most members of the class are likely not aware of the technical violation of the statute. The likelihood that many members of the class will choose to bring individual lawsuits is remote. III. Identifiability of Class Members Members of the class must be identifiable. Courts sometimes address this concern when determining whether the class can be defined. See Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Other courts address this Options: A. 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 B. holding that rule 23a requirements must be satisfied as if class were to litigate its claims C. recognizing that the number of class representatives is not significant under rule 23a D. holding in addition to the requirements in 23a and 23b the plaintiff must also show that the class is indeed identifiable as a class E. holding that the filing of a class action by a class representative without standing tolls the period of limitations with regard to all asserted members of the class and that the amendment of the complaint by the addition of a class member with standing relates back to the original complaint

assistant: The best answer is D. holding in addition to the requirements in 23a and 23b the plaintiff must also show that the class is indeed identifiable as a class
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Parties hereto (i) consents to submit itself to the personal jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the " Chancery Court ") or, if, but only if, the Chancery Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any federal court located in the State of Delaware with respect to any dispute arising out of, relating to or in connection with this Agreement or any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, (ii) agrees that it will not attempt to deny or defeat such personal jurisdiction by motion or other request for leave from any such court, (iii) agrees that it will not bring any action arising out of, relating to or in connection with this Agreement or any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement in any court other than the courts of the State of Delaware, as described above, and (iv) waives any right to trial by jury with respect to any action related to or arising out of this Agreement or any of the transactions contemplated hereby. Nothing in this Section 10 shall prevent any Party from bringing an action or proceeding in any jurisdiction to enforce any judgment of the Chancery Court or any federal court located in the State of Delaware, as applicable. Each Party to this Agreement irrevocably consents to service of process inside or outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts referred to in this Section 10 in the manner provided for notices in Section 10.1 of the Merger Agreement.

assistant: Submission To Jurisdiction
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 consideration of Services, the Consultant will be paid Nine Thousand Five Hundred United States Dollars (USD 9,500) per month (the “ Consulting Fee ”). The Consultant shall not receive any additional benefits or compensation for Services, except for the reimbursement of expenses, as is more fully described below in Section 7.

assistant: Payments
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: supreme court’s duty to forward it), it surely was not filed “properly,” as § 2244(d)(2) requires. “[J]ust because [an] application is pending, does not mean that it was properly filed. For example, if an application is erroneously accepted by the clerk without the requisite filing fee, it will be pending, but not properly filed.” Christian v. Baskerville, 232 F.Supp.2d 605, 607 (E.D.Va.2001). “[A]n application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings. These usually prescribe, for example, the form of the document, the time limits upon its delivery, the court and office in which it must be lodged, and the requisite filing fee.” Artuz, 531 U.S. at 8, 121 S.Ct. at 364; see, e.g., Hurley, 233 F.3d at 1298 (<HOLDING>). For the reasons discussed in the previous Options: A. holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed B. holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application without regard to the merits of the petition C. holding that a state application for relief had not been properly filed because it was not accompanied by an oath as required by state law D. holding that third state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed E. holding that seventh application for postconviction relief which was rejected because evidence on which it was based was not properly authenticated was properly filed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a state application for relief had not been properly filed because it was not accompanied by an oath as required by state law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There are no actions, suits, proceedings, claims or disputes pending or, to the knowledge of the Loan Parties after due and diligent investigation, threatened or contemplated, at law, in equity, in arbitration or before any Governmental Authority, by or against any Loan Party or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries or against any of their properties or revenues that (a) purport to affect or pertain to this Agreement, any other Loan Document or the consummation of the Amendment No. 1 Transactions, or (b) except as specifically disclosed on Schedule 6.06 (the “ Disclosed Litigation ”), either individually or in the aggregate, if determined adversely, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, and there has been no material adverse change in the status, or financial effect on any Loan Party, of the matters described on Schedule 6.06 hereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: citations omitted). However, “[t]hat the burden is on the government does not change the fact that, if the government meets its burden, it will prevail unless the claimants introduce evidence to support their case” that the property in question is not subject to forfeiture. United States v. $171,206.00 in U.S. Currency, 320 F.3d 658, 662 (6th Cir.2003) (finding “evidence of legitimate income that is insufficient to explain the large amount of property seized, unrebutted by any evidence pointing to any source of legitimate income ... satisfies the burden [for forfeiture] imposed by the statute”). The provisions of CAFRA apply to actions pursued under § 545. See United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton, No. 12 Civ. 4760 PKC, 2012 WL 5834899, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2012) (<HOLDING>). Thus, with respect to § 545, it is plaintiff, Options: A. holding in a civil forfeiture case under inter alia 18 usc 545 that cafra applies to the two forfeiture statutes invoked by the government that are found in title 18 B. holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings C. holding that 545 entitles the government to civil forfeiture of certain funds subject to the eighth amendment D. holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture E. holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings

assistant: The best answer is A. holding in a civil forfeiture case under inter alia 18 usc 545 that cafra applies to the two forfeiture statutes invoked by the government that are found in title 18
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All payments to be made by the Borrower shall be made without condition or deduction for any counterclaim, defense, recoupment or setoff. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all payments by the Borrower hereunder shall be made to the Administrative Agent, for the account of the respective Lenders to which such payment is owed, at the applicable Administrative Agent’s Office in Dollars not later than 1:00 p.m. on the date specified herein. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Administrative Agent may require that any payments due under this Agreement be made in the United States. The Administrative Agent will promptly distribute to each Lender its Applicable Percentage (or other applicable share as provided herein) of such payment in like funds as received by wire transfer to such Lender’s Lending Office. All payments received by the Administrative Agent after 1:00 p.m. shall in each case be deemed received on the next succeeding Business Day and any applicable interest or fee shall continue to accrue. If any payment to be made by the Borrower shall come due on a day other than a Business Day, payment shall be made on the next following Business Day, and such extension of time shall be reflected in computing interest or fees, as the case may be.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: an “aggravated felony” under § 2L1.2 as long as it satisfies the definition of “aggravated felony” in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). In relying on Saenz-Mendoza, defendants fail to recognize that Saenz-Mendoza interpreted the “aggravated felony” enhancement in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), not the “crime of violence” enhancement in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Because these cases involve only the “crime of violence” enhancement, the interpretation of which is governed by different application notes, Saenz-Mendoza is not instructive on this issue. The definition of “felony” for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) includes any offense punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed. See United States v. Hernandez-Castillo, 449 F.3d 1127, 1130-31 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); ef. United States v. Norris, 319 F.3d 1278, Options: A. holding that a defendant who received a suspended sentence of 157 days in jail was convicted of an offense punishable by more than oneyear of incarceration because california law provided for a sentence of up to three years imprisonment B. holding a sentence is not limited to period of incarceration C. holding that alien smuggling offenses punishable by up to five years imprisonment each were a serious offense for speedy trial act purposes D. holding that crimes of bank fraud punishable by up to five years imprisonment each were a serious offense for speedy trial act purposes E. holding that a sentence structured with three years incarceration suspended and eight years of sex offender probation was a true split sentence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a defendant who received a suspended sentence of 157 days in jail was convicted of an offense punishable by more than oneyear of incarceration because california law provided for a sentence of up to three years imprisonment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a resident still may be required to designate a homestead, upon request of a creditor, if the person owns more than one property interest to which a homestead exemption might reasonably apply. Id. 3 . A.R.S. § 33-1101(A). 4 . See, e.g., A.R.S. § 32-2101(54)(defining a "subdivision” as "land or lands divided or proposed to be divided for the purpose of sale or lease, whether immediate or future, into six or more lots, parcels or fractional interests”). 5 ."[T]he fundamental purpose of the homestead law is to protect the family against the forced sale of home property from certain creditors, and, to further this purpose, the homestead laws should be interpreted liberally to advance the objectives of the statutes.” Matchav. Winn, 131 Ariz. 115, 117, 638 P.2d 1361, 1363 (App.Div. 1 1981)(<HOLDING>). 6 . "Those entitled to a homestead are named, Options: A. holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law B. holding that homestead exemption was unavailable even though claimants were living on the land and claiming it as homestead with the permission or acquiescence of the owner for they could have no homestead right or interest in land to which they had no title C. holding that the general rule is that temporary absence from the premises will not itself cause an abandonment of the homestead but to retain the homestead exemption one leaving the homestead must in good faith intend to return albeit the intent to return need not be at any particular time in the future D. holding that a declaration of homestead that omits a recitation that the declarant is an arizona resident is invalid following the reasoning of california case law E. holding that california law permitted the application of a homestead exemption to property located outside the state

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a declaration of homestead that omits a recitation that the declarant is an arizona resident is invalid following the reasoning of california case law
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: 60(b) motion does not pertain to "territory occupied by AEDPA”), cert. denied sub nom. Lanzotti v. United States, 537 U.S. 1140, 123 S.Ct. 937, 154 L.Ed.2d 836 (2003), cert. denied sub nom. Hunt v. United States, 537 U.S. 1234, 123 S.Ct. 1353, 155 L.Ed.2d 199 (2003), cert. denied sub nom. Dunlap v. Frank, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2644, 156 L.Ed.2d 662 (2003); Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (directing district courts to conduct "a brief initial inquiry to determine whether the allegations in the Rule 60(b) motion in fact amount to a second or successive collateral attack” in which case the motion should be denied as barred or transferred to the Court of Appeals for certification); Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 921 & n. 3 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The Fifth Circuit appears to take a dim view Options: A. holding that district courts may properly treat rule 60b motions as successive habeas petitions B. holding that motion filed under fedrcivp 60b properly construed as successive 2255 motion C. holding in a preaedpa context that a rule 60b motion is the practical equivalent of a successive habeas corpus petition and therefore is subject to a cause and prejudice analysis D. holding that a rule 60b motion ordinarily should be treated as a successive habeas petition but declining to adopt a bright line rule equating all rule 60b motions with successive habeas petitions E. holding that a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district court dismisses a rule 60b motion as an unauthorized successive habeas motion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a rule 60b motion ordinarily should be treated as a successive habeas petition but declining to adopt a bright line rule equating all rule 60b motions with successive habeas petitions
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: with “intentionally and knowingly” causing the death of a police officer. The trial court’s charge to the jury authorized conviction upon a finding that he “intentionally or knowingly” caused such result. In his first point of error, appellant complains that the trial judge improperly permitted conviction on a theory other than that alleged in the indictment. This Court has long approved the practice of prosecuting authorities to plead culpable mental states conjunctively and submit them for jury consideration disjunctively whenever the statutory language is disjunctive. Ely v. State, 582 S.W.2d 416, 421 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (on original submission); Cowan v. State, 562 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) (rehearing denied en banc). But cf. Hunter v. State, 576 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (<HOLDING>); Montgomery v. State, 639 S.W.2d 949 Options: A. holding that courts look to substance of plea for relief to determine nature of pleading not merely title of pleading B. recognizing by citing several cases that diametric opposing lines of case law authority exist with one line suggesting that information need not allege each element of offense charged because notice pleading is sufficient distinguishing pleading elements from pleading facts C. holding that pleading rules are substantive D. holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances E. holding that disjunctive pleading of culpable mental states is permissible

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that disjunctive pleading of culpable mental states is permissible
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: rule never presented for approval by this Court, he argues that filing a complaint should not toll the statute of limitations when a complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. ¶ 23. The plaintiffs cite Jackpot Mississippi Riverboat, Inc. v. Smith as an example of this Court applying tolling to a case previously dismissed for want of prosecution. Jackpot, 874 So.2d 959, 961 (Miss. 2004). In Jackpot, when examining the dates relevant to a determination of whether the statute of limitations had run on plaintiffs case, this Court stated: Smith and Richardson filed their “first” complaint for malicious prosecution on July 7, 1995, a little more than two months shy of the expiration of the statute of limitations. Norman v. Bucklew, 684 So.2d 1246, 1256 (Miss.1996) (<HOLDING>). On April 7, 2000, Smith and Richardson’s Options: A. holding the same for malicious prosecution B. holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed C. holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution D. holding when a motion for postconviction relief is not properly filed 2244s statute of limitations is not statutorily tolled E. holding that the plain meaning of 2244d2 is that the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any properly filed federal habeas corpus petition

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed
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: 5.12 reports certain parts of the skype websites or the software may ask for written suggestions or problem reports such as using our contact form or problem report form ( `` reports '' ) .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: by `` platform '' we mean a set of apis and services ( such as content ) that enable others , including application developers and website operators , to retrieve data from facebook or provide data to us .

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, together with the Merger Agreement and the Confidentiality Agreement, constitute the entire agreement, and supersede all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, among the parties, with respect to the subject matter hereof.

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: This Agreement and the other Basic Documents are intended by the Parties as a final expression of their agreement and intended to be a complete and exclusive statement of the agreement and understanding of the Parties in respect of the subject matter contained herein and therein. There are no restrictions, promises, warranties or undertakings, other than those set forth or referred to herein or the other Basic Documents with respect to the rights granted by ETP or any of its Affiliates or the Purchaser or any of its Affiliates set forth herein or therein. This Agreement and the other Basic Documents supersede all prior agreements and understandings between the Parties with respect to such subject matter.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: our automated systems analyze your content ( including emails ) to provide you personally relevant product features , such as customized search results , tailored advertising , and spam and malware detection .

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: Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)) (internal quotations omitted). 17 . See supra note 4. 18 . While other circuits have concluded that substitute assets may not be restrained pretrial, it is well-settled in the Fourth Circuit that pretrial restraint of substitute assets is appropriate to preserve those assets for forfeiture if a conviction is ultimately entered. See Billman, 915 F.2d at 921 (upholding pretrial restraint of substitute assets under RICO forfeiture provision in 18 U.S.C. § 1963(d)(1)(A)); United States v. Wu, 814 F.Supp. 491, 493 (E.D.Va.1993) (applying Billman rationale to uphold pretrial restraint of substitute assets under both 18 U.S.C. § 1963(d)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)); United States v. Swank, 797 F.Supp. 497, 501 (E.D.Va.1992) (<HOLDING>). But see contrary cases cited infra note 32. Options: A. holding that drug quantity is an element of an offense under 21 usc 841 B. holding that no special parole term was authorized for a conviction for conspiracy in violation of 21 usc 846 which mentioned only fine and imprisonment and not special parole and emphazing the in addition to language of 21 usc 841b1b C. holding that 21 usc 853e1 authorizes pretrial restraint of substitute assets D. holding conviction for cce murder 21 usc 848e1 is a separate offense from a cce 21 usc 848c E. holding that when a plea agreement or consent order does not explicitly prohibit seeking the forfeiture of substitute assets via civil forfeiture under 981 the statutory scheme controls and requires the forfeiture of substitute assets pursuant to 2461c and 853p

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 21 usc 853e1 authorizes pretrial restraint of substitute assets
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 proceeds of the Loans will be used only to finance the working capital needs, and for general corporate purposes, of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries in the ordinary course of business or otherwise to the extent permitted by the terms of this Agreement. No part of the proceeds of any Loan will be used, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose that entails a violation of any of the Regulations of the Board, including Regulations T, U and X. The Borrower will not request any Borrowing or Letter of Credit, and the Borrower shall not use, and shall ensure that its Subsidiaries and its or their respective directors, officers, employees and agents shall not use, the proceeds of any Borrowing or Letter of Credit (i) in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment or giving of money, or anything else of value, to any Person in violation of any Anti-Corruption Laws, (ii) for the purpose of funding, financing or facilitating any activities, business or transaction of or with any Sanctioned Person, or in any Sanctioned Country, to the extent such activities, business or transaction would be prohibited by Sanctions if conducted by a corporation incorporated in the United States or in a European Union member state or (iii) in any manner that would result in the violation of any Sanctions applicable to any party hereto.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds