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: liberties with the actor or another,” Utah courts have read this language narrowly, holding that "indecent liberties” refers only to "acts of equal magnitude of gravity” to those specifically set forth in the statute. Kennedy, 616 P.2d at 597; see also State in the Interest of J.L.S., 610 P.2d 1294, 1296 (Utah 1980) (reading the term "indecent liberties” as not "subsuming a mere offensive touching when the circumstances do not indicate conduct of sufficient gravity to be equated with the specific descriptions [of offensive touching] set forth in the statute.”) 7 . If attempted sexual abuse of a child is a crime of violence, a fortiori, the completed offense of sexual abuse of a child is a crime of violence. Cf. United States v. Coronado-Cervantes, 154 F.3d 1242, 1244-45 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Passi, 62 F.3d 1278, 1282 Options: A. holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 16 B. holding that sexual abuse of a minor is a violent crime within the meaning of the sentencing guidelines and noting that definitions of crime of violence in 18 usc 16 and ussg 4b12 differ slightly finding reyescastro to be persuasive in its 4b12 analysis C. holding that a sentencing judge retains discretion to examine the underlying facts of a case in deciding whether an offense is a crime of violence under section 4b12 D. holding that the definition of a violent felony is nearly identical to the definitions of a crime of violence used in the guidelines E. holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc 16

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that sexual abuse of a minor is a violent crime within the meaning of the sentencing guidelines and noting that definitions of crime of violence in 18 usc 16 and ussg 4b12 differ slightly finding reyescastro to be persuasive in its 4b12 analysis
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: 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (1976) for the period prior to October 1, 1982 and 943, 944 (7th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (rejecting without discussion the argument that the FCIA should apply to a November 1981 judgment for interest accruing after the judgment); see also Elias v. Ford Motor Co., 734 F.2d 463, 467 (1st Cir.1984) (applying the state rate under former § 1961 to an April 1982 judgment when the parties agreed that the state rate should be applied); United States v. Dollar Rent A Car Sys., 712 F.2d 938, 940 n. 5 (4th Cir.1983) (observing that “[tjhere is no indication that the statute was intended to have retroactive effect,” but noting that the parties had not raised the issue); United States ex rel. Billows Elec. Supply Co. v. E.J.T. Constr. Co., 557 F.Supp. 514, 516-17 (E.D.Pa.1983) (<HOLDING>), aff'd mem., 729 F.2d 1450 (3d Cir.1984); Options: A. holding that the statute does not apply retroactively to claims accruing prior to the effective date B. holding that the fcia rate should apply to a march 30 1982 judgment against a private party for the entire postjudgment period C. holding that the fcia does not apply to a july 1981 judgment against a private party for inter est accruing after the judgment D. holding that the fcia does not apply to a september 1981 judgment against the united states for interest accruing after the acts effective date E. holding that the fcia does not apply to a june 1981 judgment against a private party for interest accruing either after the judgment or after the effective date

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the fcia does not apply to a july 1981 judgment against a private party for inter est accruing after the judgment
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 adjustment, indulgence, forbearance, waiver, consent or compromise that Lender might extend, grant or give to Borrower, Guarantor or any other Person with respect to any provision of this Guaranty or any of the other Loan Documents.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to support the verdict. Cantelon, 85 S.W.3d at 460 (citing Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460, 462-63 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (declining to impose legal and factual sufficiency standards upon a review of accomplice witness testimony under article 38.14)). Likewise, legal and factual sufficiency standards of review are not applicable to a review of sufficiency of covert witness testimony under article 38.141. Brown v. State, 159 S.W.3d 703, 711 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 485, 163 L.Ed.2d 369 (2005); see also Torres, 137 S.W.3d at 196. The corroborating evidence requirement is satisfied if there is some other evidence that tends to connect the accused to the commi 9893, at *2 (Tex.App.-Tyler May 12, 2004, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, in Young v. State, the First Options: A. holding that testimony by police officer to effect that informant told him that defendant and his accomplice had come to informants home and discussed purchase of five kilograms of cocaine was not hearsay because statement was made by informant who was authorized by defendant to communicate such information to police officer under rule 801e2c B. holding corroborating evidence sufficient that officer drove informant to defendants house saw defendant admit informant and saw informant come out with drugs and defendants voice was identified on audio tape of transaction C. holding that information from confidential informant was reliable and credible where affidavit referred to previous instances in which informant provided correct information to police affiants own investigation and controlled buy of contraband confirmed information and second informant supplied same information to police D. recognizing affiants averments that informant had assisted police in apprehension of another drug felon in determining reliability of informant E. holding evidence that police officer drove informant to location and waited outside while transaction occurred insufficient to corroborate informants identification of defendant as person from whom he purchased drugs

assistant: The best answer is B. holding corroborating evidence sufficient that officer drove informant to defendants house saw defendant admit informant and saw informant come out with drugs and defendants voice was identified on audio tape of transaction
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: of the President because he cannot remove the commissioners and whether the ex officio members are present during the Commission’s deliberations — have some impact (even though the extent of which may be impossible to measure) on how the Commission decides matters before it. See Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 727 n. 5, 106 S.Ct. 3181, 3188 n. 5, 92 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986) (“ ‘[I]t is the Comptroller General’s presumed desire to avoid removal by pleasing Congress, which creates the here-and-now subservience to another branch that raises separation-of-powers problems.’ ”) (quoting Synar v. United States, 626 F.Supp. 1374, 1392 (D.D.C.1986)); Metropolitan Washington Airports Auth. v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 2298, 2312, 115 L.Ed.2d 236 (1991) (<HOLDING>). We cannot assume, however, that the Options: A. recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board B. holding unconstitutional a board of review comprised of members of congress with veto power over certain executive functions even though the statutory scheme might prove to be innocuous C. holding that a mayor although the executive officer may still have legislative functions D. recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing E. holding that a trustee is not granted veto power over a debtors personal decisions at least with respect to prepetition expenditures

assistant: The best answer is B. holding unconstitutional a board of review comprised of members of congress with veto power over certain executive functions even though the statutory scheme might prove to be innocuous
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 effective date of this agreement (the “Agreement”) shall be April 18, 2016. Subject to the provisions for termination as provided in Section 10 hereof, the term of Executive’s employment under this Agreement shall be the period beginning on the Effective Date and ending on April 18, 2019 (the “Term"). The Term shall not be automatically renewed and shall end upon any earlier termination of Executive’s employment with the Company.

assistant: Terms
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: marijuana and of conspiring to distribute marijuana. On appeal, he does not challenge those convictions or the sentences he received for those convictions. 2 . As further discussed below in section 111(A) of this opinion, the phrase "crack cocaine” and its equivalent variant "crack” are commonly used terms for "cocaine base.” See, e.g., United States v. Kelly, 519 F.3d 355, 363 (7th Cir.2008) (noting that "crack cocaine” is a “form of cocaine base” and that " '[cjrack’ is a street term” for crack cocaine). We use the terms "crack cocaine” and "crack” interchangeably in this opinion. 3 . Appellant does not claim, nor can he, that he was entitled to a continuance due to any surprise caused by the amendment. See Willis v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 430, 438, 393 S.E.2d 405, 409 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Neither Virginia's Code nor its case law Options: A. holding that a motion filed as a rule 59e was not a motion to alter or amend the judgment and did not toll the time to file an appeal because the motion for costs was wholly collateral to thejudgment on the merits B. holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to 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 C. holding that trial court erred in considering pro se motion for new trial filed when defendant was represented by counsel D. holding that a defendant cannot claim that the amendment surprised him when the motion to amend was filed well in advance of trial E. holding that indictment sufficiently informed defendant of the charge against him so as to enable him to prepare a defense and thus there is no claim that he was surprised at trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a defendant cannot claim that the amendment surprised him when the motion to amend was filed well in advance of trial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not come to pass—the wife’s obtaining refinancing of the marital home. And, most significantly, it fails to define what the “disposition” of the home' would entail. Accordingly, the reservation of jurisdiction signals to us that additional judicial labor will be required. See Caufield v. Caufield, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla. 2002) (“A final judgment is one which ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of all issues iftvolved such that no further action by the court will be necessary.”); Demont v. Demont, 24 So.3d 699, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (dismissing appeal where “final” judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction “to consider the division of the parties’ marital personal property,” citing Caufield, 837 So.2d at 375); Wilson v. Wilson, 906 So.2d 356, 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. Thomas, 902 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA Options: A. holding that an order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final B. holding adjudication order based upon a determination on the merits in juvenile court is a final and appealable order C. holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award D. holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants E. holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final
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: Set forth on Schedule 5.20(a), is the following information which is true and complete in all respects as of the Closing Date and as of the last date such Schedule was required to be updated in accordance with Section 6.02: (i) a complete and accurate list of all Subsidiaries, joint ventures and partnerships and other equity investments of the Loan Parties as of the Closing Date and as of the last date such Schedule was required to be updated in accordance with Section 6.02, (ii) the number of shares of each class of Equity Interests in each Subsidiary outstanding, (iii) the number and percentage of outstanding shares of each class of Equity Interests owned by the Loan Parties and their Subsidiaries and (iv) the class or nature of such Equity Interests (i.e. voting, non-voting, preferred, etc.). The outstanding Equity Interests in all Subsidiaries are validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable (if corporate stock) and are owned free and clear of all Liens other than Permitted Liens. Except as set forth on Schedule 5.20(a) , there are no outstanding subscriptions, options, warrants, calls, rights or other agreements or commitments (other than stock options granted to employees or directors and directors’ qualifying shares) of any nature relating to the Equity Interests of any Loan Party or any Subsidiary thereof, except as contemplated in connection with the Loan Documents.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and quotations omitted); see also People v. Lewis, 109 Cal.App.3d 599, 167 Cal.Rptr. 326, 330 (1980). This is very similar to the Fourth Amendment test applied by this court, which provides that “[p]robable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting officers, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that[the suspect] had committed a crime.” United States v. Buckner, 179 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir.1999) (citations and quotations omitted). Peng advances the following five arguments on appeal attacking application of qualified immunity to Gage. First, Peng argues that a civil dispute over ownership of land title documents cannot form the basis for probable cause. See, e.g., Stevens v. Rose, 298 F.3d 880, 884 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 Options: A. holding that the factfinder may conclude that recovery is not likely when the car is left on street with keys in the car B. holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause C. holding that appellants had no standing to challenge search of car because they had no ownership or possessory rights of any kind in the car D. holding that search of car was not incident to arrest where arrestee had exited and locked car before he was approached by officer and then arrested E. holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause
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: Construction, validity and administration of this Plan shall be governed by applicable Federal law and applicable state law in which the principal office of the Plan Sponsor is located, without regard to the conflict of law provisions of such state law. If any provision shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions hereof shall continue to be fully effective.

assistant: Governing Laws
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: user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller or lessor is engaged in the business of selling or leasing such product, and (b) the product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in its condition after it is sold or leased. Id. at 75, 470 P.2d at 243 (emphasis added). The Stewart court explained that it “essentially” adopted the rule in Restatement (Second) of Torts (hereinafter Restatement (Second)) § 402A (1977). Stewart, 52 Haw. at 75, 470 P.2d at 243. We initially note that, notwithstanding its obvious significance in the rule pronounced in Stewart, the issue of substantial change does not apply in every case. With respect to newer products, for example, the issue hardly arises. See, e.g., id., 52 Haw. at 78-79, 470 P.2d at 244-45 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the issue has limited significance Options: A. recognizing that a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party B. holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict C. holding that given the relatively unused condition of the car there was sufficient evidence to withstand a directed verdict in favor of the manufacturer and distributor D. holding that a directed verdict in defendants favor was appropriate where plaintiff s expert was able to state his opinion regarding the cause of plaintiffs injuries only in terms of possibility but not of probability E. holding that an appellate court viewing the evidence and all inferences of fact in light most favorable to nonmoving party can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that given the relatively unused condition of the car there was sufficient evidence to withstand a directed verdict in favor of the manufacturer and distributor
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 may be disclosed in any Property Document, Seller has not received written notice of any federal, state, local or other governmental building, zoning, health, safety, law, ordinance, or regulation violation with respect to the Property, that has not been cured. There are no such proceedings pending or, to Seller’s knowledge, threatened that could materially adversely affect the Property.

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: has not, in fact, regulated the conduct in question. “The basic difference between the federal and state laws is that the Truth in Lending [Act] is a disclosure law whereas the [Louisiana Consumer Credit Law] governs the essentials of. the transaction itself.” Reliable Credit Corp. v. Smith, 418 So.2d 1311, 1314 n. 2 (La.1982); see also Dengel v. Hibernia Nat. Bank of New Orleans, 539 So.2d 947, 949 (La.Ct.App.1989) (“Both sides agree that Louisiana has no disclosure requirements.”); Kathleen M. Overcash, Note, Usury and Consumer Credit Law in Louisiana, 53 Tulane L. Rev. 1439, 1462-63 & n. 175 (1979). As TILA and state law were enacted for different purposes to serve different ends, no direct impairment exists. See also United States v. Cavin, 39 F.3d 1299, 1305 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Finally, CCIA presents the Louisiana Unfair Options: A. holding that the mccarranferguson act which bars application of a federal law in the face of a state law enacted for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance did not preclude the concurrent assertion of the federal rico statute and nevada insurance law B. holding that the mccarran act did not strip federal court of jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution for mail fraud by operators of an insurance business even though louisiana state insurance regulators also sought criminal convictions for the same conduct C. holding that federal criminal statutes subjecting native americans to federal prosecution did not violate equal protection even though they arguably lessened the burden the prosecution would have had under state law D. holding that exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims was proper on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction even though the plaintiffs had erroneously claimed diversity jurisdiction because a legitimate federal question was also presented and the state law claims formed part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim E. holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the mccarran act did not strip federal court of jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution for mail fraud by operators of an insurance business even though louisiana state insurance regulators also sought criminal convictions for the same conduct
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: delay in this case so as to warrant reversal of his conviction. See United States v. Hudson, 46 MJ 226 (1997); United States v. Jenkins, 38 MJ 287 (CMA 1993). The court below and I both agree that the post-trial delay in this case did not legally prejudice appellant as required by our case law for appellate relief. See United States v. Gray, 22 USCMA 443, 445, 47 CMR 484, 486 (1973); United States v. Timmons, 22 USCMA 226, 227, 46 CMR 226, 227 (1973). Appellant, however, argues that this Court’s decisions requiring a showing of legal prejudice for reversal do not bind the Court of Criminal Appeals or preclude it from granting a lesser form of sentence relief (confinement reduction) based on a simple showing of unreasonable post-trial delay. But see United States v. Timmons, supra (<HOLDING>). He cites the “unique” sentence approval Options: A. holding miranda error prejudicial in part because the defense presented testimony it otherwise would not have due to the improperly admitted statements B. holding that erroneous admission of improper and prejudicial evidence did not require reversal because the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant even without the prejudicial testimony C. holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error D. holding posttrial delay standing alone without prejudicial error in the trial proceedings will not require relief on otherwise proper findings and sentences E. holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding posttrial delay standing alone without prejudicial error in the trial proceedings will not require relief on otherwise proper findings and sentences
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: potential mootness of a claim for declaratory relief, this court has explained that “the question is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy ... of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Coal. for Gov’t Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., 365 F.3d 435, 459 (6th Cir.2004) (quoting Super Tire Eng’g Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 122, 94 S.Ct. 1694, 40 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974) (quotation marks omitted)). The Workers argue that the district court’s decision is “fundamentally unjust” because the issue would not have been moot if the district court had rendered its decision in a timely manner. Although they justifiably lament the district court’s inordinate and inexplicable nine-year delay ) (<HOLDING>). The Workers’ constitutional claims are Options: A. holding that the governor did not have to obtain the consent of the senate for the appointment of a candidate when the first candidate had been rejected by the senate the senate was not in session at the time that the second candidate was appointed and because the legislature which created and therefore controlled the office did not require by statute that the governor seek the senates approval in those circumstances B. holding that the case was not moot even though claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were no longer alive because the plaintiff had requested pecuniary relief C. holding that because a resolution was no longer before the state senate and election results had already been voided under the resolution declaratory relief would have no effect on the parties current legal interests D. recognizing that the words without prejudice when used in an order or decree generally indicate that there has been no resolution of the controversy on its merits and leaves the issues in litigation open to another suit as if no action had ever been brought E. holding declaratory relief is inappropriate where the constitutional injury has already occurred and there is no threat of future harm

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that because a resolution was no longer before the state senate and election results had already been voided under the resolution declaratory relief would have no effect on the parties current legal interests
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Employment Term, Employee’s base salary shall be $415,800 per annum, which salary may be increased (but not decreased) by the Board (or a designated committee thereof) in its discretion (the “ Base Salary ”), which Base Salary shall be payable in regular installments in accordance with the Company’s general payroll practices and subject to withholding and other payroll taxes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Employee consents to the 20% reduction in Base Salary that became effective as of February 16, 2015 and agrees that such reduction in Base Salary is not and will not be considered a breach of this Agreement or any prior agreement and shall not constitute “Good Reason” for purposes of Section 4(d) of this Agreement or any prior agreement, even though such reduction continues in effect on and after the Effective Date.

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: The Term of this Agreement shall commence on the date hereof, and shall terminate on the one-year anniversary thereof; provided, however, that unless this Agreement has been earlier terminated, the Term shall be automatically extended for additional one (1) year periods, on a year-to-year basis, commencing on the day immediately following the then-scheduled end of the Term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either Owner or Manager may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days notice in writing to the other party without reason, and either party may also terminate this Agreement for cause as specified by Sections 7.02 and 7.04 below.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on the question now before us. Some address wholly separate aspects of Winter. See, e.g., Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1022-23 (9th Cir.2009) (emphasizing that Winter requires consideration of narrow injunctive relief). Others simply recite the Winter test without elaboration. See, e.g., S. Fork Band Council of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 588 F.3d 718, 721 (9th Cir.2009); Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2009). Three other circuits have directly confronted the question whether some version of a sliding scale test has survived Winter. They have split. The Fourth Circuit has held that the sliding scale approach is now invalid. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 575 F.3d 342, 347 (4th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that the circuits prior test which permitted flexible interplay among the elements may no longer be applied after winter B. holding that after marrama the absolute right position is no longer viable C. recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court D. holding that a support order was no longer equitable after a blood test excluded the putative father E. holding that the eighth circuit no longer asks which district among two or more potential forums is the best venue

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the circuits prior test which permitted flexible interplay among the elements may no longer be applied after winter
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: armed. Those are machinations drawn up by the defense attorney.” At that point, Davis’s attorney objected that such a statement attacked Davis over the shoulders of defense counsel, violated his due process rights, and deprived him of his right to a fair trial. The trial court overruled Davis’s objection, and the prosecutor continued, “There’s no evidence to suggest that.” Viewing the prosecutor’s statement in the context of the entire argument, the comment was made in rebuttal, specifically in response to Davis’s claim that Latarsha was armed and had attacked Davis. See Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 256; York v. State, No. PD-1753-06, 2008 WL 2677368, at *5 (Tex.Crim.App. July 2, 2008) (not designated for publication). By saying that the idea that Latarsha was armed was a “machinatio pp.1973) (<HOLDING>); Guy, 160 S.W.3d at 616-17 (holding Options: A. holding that prosecutors remarks that defense counsel was a zealot in the courtroom and thank god hes a defense attorney and not part of the government were improper B. holding prosecutors argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper C. holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper D. holding prosecutors statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper E. holding that the prosecutors question to the defendant about a prior unrelated offense was improper

assistant: The best answer is D. holding prosecutors statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper
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.3d 1225, 1231 (7th Cir.1996); GASH Assoc. v. Village of Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (7th Cir.1993). The district court’s Rooker-Feldman analysis was erroneous. Madsen is not challenging a state-court judgment, and nothing in his complaint asks the district court to review the final decisions of the state circuit or appellate courts. See Long, 182 F.3d at 555-56; Centres v. Town of Brookfield, 148 F.3d 699, 703 (7th Cir.1998). Instead, Madsen alleges an injury resulting from a conspiracy between DPR officials and private defendants leading to an administrative decision to suspend his license, an allegation that is not barred. See Centres, 148 F.3d at 703; Nesses v. Shepard, 68 F.3d 1003, 1004 (7th Cir.1995); see also Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103 F.3d 1346, 1348-49 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Still, the district court did correctly Options: A. holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act B. holding that where state rules of civil procedure apply to courts of the state they do not apply to adjudicatory proceedings before state agencies C. holding that although the state regulated and subsidized the nursing homes private parties not state officials made the administrative decisions therefore the decisions could not be treated as state action D. holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences E. holding that rookerfeldman does not apply to state administrative decisions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that rookerfeldman does not apply to state administrative decisions
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: EMPLOYEE agrees and acknowledges that she is entitled to no other severance payments or severance benefits and that no severance payments described in paragraph 4 herein will be made unless and until EMPLOYEE has fulfilled all of her obligations under this Agreement, including signing the Release contained herein and, upon the termination of her employment on April 14, 2017, signing the Second Release, attached hereto as Appendix A. Nothing herein can or is intended to affect EMPLOYEE’s pension rights or other retirement benefits or the amount (if any) of any pension payments or other retirement benefits to which she is entitled, or rights to indemnification pursuant to EMPLOYER’s or any of its affiliates’ organizational documents and/or director and officer liability policies covering her activities in connection with her employment with EMPLOYER.

assistant: Releases
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 Purchase Price shall be paid by Lessee in shares of Lessee’s $0.001 par value common stock (“Common Stock”) as set forth herein. Upon the final determination of the Purchase Price pursuant to Section 2.1, Lessee shall issue to Lessor a number of shares (“Purchased Shares”) of Common Stock equal to the Purchase Price divided by $0.50. In other words, Lessor will accept as full and fair consideration for the Subject Interests the Purchased Shares at the rate of $0.50 per share.

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: for relief under § 3582(c). Nor is Brown entitled to pursue his claims through § 2241. A prisoner may proceed under § 2241 if § 2255 would be “inadequate of ineffective.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir.2002) (per curiam). We have held that § 2255’s “safety valve” applies only in rare circumstances, such as when an intervening change in the statute under which the petitioner was convicted renders the petitioner’s conduct non-criminal. See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997). Brown has not satisfied that standard here, as he makes no allegation that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, but instead asserts only that he is “innocent” of being a career offender. See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120-21 (<HOLDING>). Brown must obtain a certificate of Options: A. holding that prisoners challenge to his sentencing enhancement under 841 and 846 was not cognizable under 2241 B. holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor C. holding that a 2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under 2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction D. holding that dorsainvil did not permit petitioner to challenge sentence via 2241 based on intervening change in sentencing law E. holding challenge to armedcareercriminal enhancement improper under 2241

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that dorsainvil did not permit petitioner to challenge sentence via 2241 based on intervening change in sentencing 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: a new contract resting partly in writing and partly in parol, the reason for the rule being that, when such an alteration is made, part of the contract has to be proven by parol evidence, and the contract is thus exposed to all the evils which the statute was intended to remedy. Robertson v. Melton, 131 Tex. 325, 115 S.W.2d 624, 626-27 (1938). In this case, the parties had a contract clearly required to be in writing, a forty-year lease for an interest in property. Tex.Bus. & Com.Code § 26.01(b)(5) (applying the writing requirement to a lease of real estate for a term longer than one year). Moreover, the purported modification, a one-sixth reduction in the amount of rent to be paid, materially affects the value of the contract. See Parrish v. Haynes, 62 F.2d 105, 106-07 (5th Cir.1932) (<HOLDING>). Thus, such a modification would have to have Options: A. recognizing circumstances that justify enforcement of a promise unenforceable under the statute of frauds B. holding appellants deposition testimony that he believed his oral contract would exist for another eight to ten years was unenforceable pursuant to statute of frauds C. holding that a parol modification of a lease having two years to run reducing the amount of rent was unenforceable under the statute of frauds D. holding that the statute of frauds bars a breach of contract claim based on an oral agreement to enter a future employment contract that would need to meet the statute of frauds E. holding lessor entitled to full months rent when rent due on first of month and lease rejected on second

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a parol modification of a lease having two years to run reducing the amount of rent was unenforceable under the statute of frauds
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The Receiving Party shall carefully restrict access to the Confidential Information to those of its officers, directors and employees who clearly need such access in order to participate on behalf of the Receiving Party in the analysis and negotiation of a business relationship or any contract or agreement, or the advisability thereof, with the Disclosing Party and who are bound by written confidentiality agreements that protect third party information.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All press releases or other public communications of any nature whatsoever relating to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, and the method of the release for publication thereof, shall be subject to the prior written consent of Buyer and Sellers, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed by such Party; provided, however , that nothing herein shall prevent a Party from publishing such press releases or other public communications as is necessary to satisfy such Party’s obligations at Law or under the applicable rules of any stock or commodities exchange, and, to the extent reasonably practicable, after consultation with the other Party and such other Party’s reasonable review and comment.

assistant: Publicity
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 TO THIS WAIVER AND AMENDMENT HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ALL RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM (WHETHER SOUNDING IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AMENDMENT, THE OTHER TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY. EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY (A) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER, AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT AND THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS WAIVER AND AMENDMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATION IN THIS SECTION.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: employee status, “summary judgment is appropriate when the remaining factors clearly point to borrowed-employee status.” Billizon, 993 F.2d at 106; Brown, 984 F.2d at 678 n. 5 (“We recognize and reiterate that the terms of a contract and the related factual issues do not automatically prevent summary judgment or direct verdict. If the remaining borrowed employee factors overwhelmingly point to borrowed employee status, a summary judgment or direct verdict is appropriate.”); Alexander v. Chevron, U.S.A, 806 F.2d 526, 529 (5th Cir.1986) (“[T]he terms of the contract between the borrowing employer and payroll employer does not ordinarily provide a sufficient basis to deny summary judgment when the remaining Ruiz factors point toward borrowed servant status.”); Gaudet, 562 F.2d at 358-59 (<HOLDING>). Lomeli argues that because Southwest failed Options: A. holding that before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law B. holding that the judge cannot consider factual statements of counsel in a motion for summary judgment C. holding that this court has power to direct the entry of summary judgment when it would be just under the circumstances D. holding despite contractual language that sufficient basic factual ingredients are undisputed to warrant the entry of summary judgment E. holding that a circuit courts entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo

assistant: The best answer is D. holding despite contractual language that sufficient basic factual ingredients are undisputed to warrant the entry of summary judgment
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: these terms constitute the entire agreement between you and dropbox with respect to the subject matter of these terms , and supersede and replace any other prior or contemporaneous agreements , or terms and conditions applicable to the subject matter of these terms .

assistant: None