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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall bear all fees and expenses attendant to registering the Registrable Securities (except any underwriters' discounts and commissions and fees of any of the Holders' own professionals, if any; it being understood that the Company shall not be obligated to pay the fees and expenses of Holder's counsel). The Company agrees to use its best efforts to cause the filing required herein to become effective promptly and to qualify to register the Registrable Securities in such States as are reasonably requested by the Holder; provided, however, that in no event shall the Company be required to register the Registrable Securities in a State in which such registration would cause (a) the Company to be obligated to register or license to do business in such State, (b) subject the Company to any material tax where it is not then so subject, (c) require the Company to file a general consent to service of process in such jurisdiction, or (d) the principal stockholders of the Company to be obligated to escrow any of their shares of capital stock of the Company.

assistant: Expenses
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: officers may be removed before the end of their statutorily defined term. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 324, 339, 32 Ct.Cl. 626, 17 S.Ct. 880, 42 L.Ed. 185 (1897) (“[W]e must construe this act as providing absolutely for the expiration of the term of office at the end of four years, and not as giving a term that shall last, at all events, for that time .... ”); Pievsky v. Ridge, 98 F.3d 730, 734 (3d Cir.1996) (“It is a long-standing rule in the federal courts that a fixed term merely provides a time for the term to end.”). Furthermore, reading section 581(b) as mandating a five-year term renders section 581(c) meaningless, a construction we will not adopt. See Food & Drug Admin, v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 177, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Pac Fung Feather Co. v. United States, 111 Options: A. holding that a statute should where possible be construed according to its plain meaning and as a whole giving meaning to all its parts B. holding that statutes dealing with same subject matter should be construed with reference to each other as parts of one system C. holding that all parts of the same statute dealing with the same subject are to be construed together as a whole and individual expressions be accorded only that meaning which other modifying provisions and the clear intent and purpose of the act will permit internal citations omitted D. holding that a statute should not be construed so as to invalidate other parts of the same statute E. holding that the issues specified in the coa may be construed in light of the pleadings and other parts of the record

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a statute should not be construed so as to invalidate other parts of the same statute
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 watercolors are attached as exhibits. See Appendix. 2 . In 1983 and 1984, Price published German and English language editions of a catalog of Hitler's paintings and sketches. The catalog depicts the paintings that are the subject of this case. See Billy F. Price, Adolf Hitler: The Unknown Artist (English ed. 1984). 3 . "Price” refers also to the heirs of Hoffman, who joined the suit as plaintiffs. The district court dismissed their claims as moot in the light of its decision. 4 . The fact that Germany was occupied, or indeed whether the German law was applicable, has no bearing on the effect of § 2680(b). The Supreme Court has defined the term “country” as "a region or tract of land." See Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197, -, 113 S.Ct. 1178, 1181-83, 122 L.Ed.2d 548 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The central collecting point in Munich Options: A. holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment B. holding that there can be no plain error where neither we nor the supreme court has addressed an issue C. holding that subject matter jurisdiction relates to whether a plaintiffs claim falls within a class of claims which a court is empowered to hear D. holding if a plaintiffs claim is concerned with rights created within the contractual relationship it falls within the tucker act E. holding that a claim arising in antarctica which has neither an organized government nor a regime of laws falls within 2680k

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a claim arising in antarctica which has neither an organized government nor a regime of laws falls within 2680k
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: Borrower and each of its Subsidiaries has to the best knowledge of Borrower after due investigation filed all tax returns and reports required by law to have been filed by it and has paid all taxes and governmental charges thereby shown to be owing, except any such taxes or charges which are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which adequate reserves in accordance with GAAP shall have been set aside on its books or which the failure to file or pay could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No consent, approval or other action of, or filing by Seller with, any Governmental Authority or any other Seller Party is required to authorize, or is otherwise required in connection with, the execution, delivery and performance of any of the Transaction Documents (other than consents, approvals and filings that have been obtained or made, as applicable).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice required to be given to RGP pursuant to this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given either when served personally or via facsimile and addressed to the appropriate party. Any notice required to be given to Employee pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given when served personally, by first class mail or via facsimile. Notices to RGP shall be effective only when addressed to: Chief Legal Officer, Resources Global Professionals, 17101 Armstrong Avenue, Irvine, California 92614; facsimile (714) 430-6424. Notice to Employee shall be effective only when addressed to: .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: trial court revokes the defendant’s probation.” Balsinger v. State, 974 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Under section 948.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), the trial court must advise the probationer of the alleged violation. Balsinger, 974 So.2d at 593. Here, the probation officer did not testify, a circumstance that the trial court recognized as not “normal.” Nevertheless, our record reflects sufficient evidence to revoke Mr. Woodson’s probation. And, based on the testimony presented, there can be no question but that Mr. Woodson knew why the State sought revocation of probation. Mr. Woodson made no objection to not being specifically advised of the alleged violation at the start of the hearing. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2007); Insko v. State, 969 So.2d 992, 1001 (Fla.2007) (<HOLDING>). Despite our affirmance, we remand for entry Options: A. holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal B. holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of trial by failing to object C. holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review D. holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review E. holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review
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: public policy and case law surrounding Commonwealth contract claims,” and did not alter or diminish the Board of Claims’ jurisdiction, except as explicitly enumerated in “two minor areas (i.e. by eliminating Board jurisdiction over medical assistance claims and allowing for nonmonetary relief, excluding specific performance, on state contract claims before the Commonwealth Court).” Id. at 1 (citing 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(c), (d)). In terms of its main request, the Board of Claims centers a substantial portion of its presentation on the question of whether the amendments to the Procurement Code reconstituting the tribunal narrowed its jurisdiction only to claims for breaches of procurement contracts. See generally Hanover Ins. Co. v. SWIF, 35 A.3d 849, 856 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The Board of Claims also places particular Options: A. holding that a nonfrivolous allegation of board jurisdiction is one which if true would establish a prima facie case that the board has jurisdiction over the matter at issue B. holding that the courts jurisdiction is limited to the appeal of final board decisions that are adverse to the claimant C. holding consistent with the board of claims position that the provisions of the procurement code have not altered or limited the exclusive jurisdiction of the independent administrative board over a particular nonprocurement matter D. holding that the denial of enforcement on the basis that the board lacked a proper quorum did not deprive the board of jurisdiction to consider the case anew E. holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board

assistant: The best answer is C. holding consistent with the board of claims position that the provisions of the procurement code have not altered or limited the exclusive jurisdiction of the independent administrative board over a particular nonprocurement matter
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: 464, 470 (2014); Hoffer v. City of Boise, 151 Idaho 400, 403, 257 P.3d 1226, 1229 (2011); Renzo v. Idaho State Dep’t of Agr., 149 Idaho 777, 781, 241 P.3d 950, 954 (2010); Cordova v. Bonneville Cnty. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 93, 144 Idaho 637, 642-43, 167 P.3d 774, 779-80 (2007); Dorea Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Blackfoot, 144 Idaho 422, 426, 163 P.3d 211, 215 (2007); Nation v. State, Dep’t of Correction, 144 Idaho 177, 194, 158 P.3d 953, 970 (2007); O’Guin v. Bingham Cnty., 142 Idaho 49, 55-56, 122 P.3d 308, 314-15 (2005); Jensen v. State, 139 Idaho 57, 64-65, 72 P.3d 897, 904-05 (2003); Tomich v. City of Pocatello, 127 Idaho 394, 400, 901 P.2d 501, 507 (1995). In Block, we did cite Beehler v. Fremont County, 145 Idaho 656, 182 P.3d 713 (Ct. App. 2008), but it was for the proposition, “(<HOLDING>).” 156 Idaho at 490, 328 P.3d at 470. In Options: A. holding that for all intents and purposes the instant case is the same action that was brought previously we therefore find the application of the doctrine of the law of the case to be appropriate B. recognizing exception C. recognizing that under puerto rico law res judicata may not apply if public policy demands an exception but noting that this exception was successfully argued in only two cases and concluding that public policy does not demand an exception in this case D. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception E. holding ic 12117 did not provide an exception after noting it has held that ic 6918a governed to the exclusion of all other standards when the case was brought under the itca

assistant: The best answer is E. holding ic 12117 did not provide an exception after noting it has held that ic 6918a governed to the exclusion of all other standards when the case was brought under the itca
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: from the common law. At common law, courts were directed “to follow decisions made in an earlier proceeding.” Bethea v. Levi Strauss & Co., 916 F.2d 453, 457 (8th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has similarly understood the doctrine. See Arizona, 460 U.S. at 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382 (“[Wjhen a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” (footnote and citation omitted)). On remand from the BIA, the IJ reconsidered and reversed its prior decision that Estrada’s Arkansas assault conviction is not a CIMT. As the BIA noted, nothing in its order reopening and remanding the action precluded the IJ from reconsidering the CIMT issue on remand. See In re Patel, 16 I. & N. Dec. 600, 601 (BIA 1978) (<HOLDING>). The BIA remanded the action to the IJ “for Options: A. holding that rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate when a motion is filed in part for a legitimate purpose even when the motion includes certain evidence which is assertedly presented for an improper purpose B. holding that a remand unless qualified or limited for a specific purpose is effective for the stated purpose and for consideration of any and all matters that the ij deems appropriate C. recognizing district courts power to admit evidence for a limited purpose D. holding that unless remand from the bia is qualified or limited to a specific purpose an ij may consider any and all matters he deems appropriate in the exercise of his administrative discretion or which are brought to his attention in compliance with the appropriate regulations E. holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a remand unless qualified or limited for a specific purpose is effective for the stated purpose and for consideration of any and all matters that the ij deems appropriate
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that either party to this Agreement institutes litigation against the other party to enforce his or its respective rights under this Agreement, each party shall pay its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with such litigation. As a material part of the consideration for this Agreement, BOTH PARTIES HERETO WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY A JURY in the event of any litigation arising from this Agreement. All legal actions arising out of or connected with this Agreement must be instituted solely in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, or in the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, and all parties hereto do hereby agree to submit to the exclusive personal jurisdiction of such courts. Each of the parties hereby expressly and irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of such courts for the purposes of any such action and expressly and irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection which it may have or hereafter may have to the laying of venue of any such action brought in any such court and any claim that any such action has been brought in an inconvenient forum. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of litigation to enforce this Agreement, the costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees and reasonable expenses of the prevailing party shall be paid by the party which did not prevail.

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: the payment of professional fees from a bankruptcy estate, regardless of whether an objection has been filed. See In re Metro Transportation Co., 78 B.R. 416, 420 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987); In re Pettibone Corp., 74 B.R. 293 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1987). 5. “In determining whether a particular expense is chargeable to the debtor’s estate, the court must distinguish between ‘overhead’ expenses, which are not reimbursable, and ‘out-of-pocket’ expenses, which are. In re Thacker, 48 B.R. 161, 164 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1985). Overhead expenses are those day-to-day operating costs which are incurred regardless of whom the law firm represents.- Id. ... Out of pocket expenses are those expenses which can clearly be traced to a particular client....” In re Island Helicopter Corp., 53 B.R. 71 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1985) (<HOLDING>). Counsel’s justification for charging the Options: A. holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel B. holding that taxi cab did not park for an appreciable length of time when it merely stopped to let out passengers C. holding that the speedy trial clock for state charges did not begin to run when the defendant was taken into custody by federal authorities on federal charges but rather when he was indicted for the state charges D. holding that although plaintiff was liable for medical services rendered he was not bound by the amount of the charges listed in the admission contract as he was entitled to question the reasonableness of the charges E. holding that out of pocket expenses reimbursable to creditors committee counsel include photocopy charges but not costs of meals secretarial overtime and cab fare where the necessity for them was not established

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that out of pocket expenses reimbursable to creditors committee counsel include photocopy charges but not costs of meals secretarial overtime and cab fare where the necessity for them was not established
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: In reviewing the latter ground for the enhancement’s application, we must consider whether the unnecessary expenditure of substantial government or court resources in the bankruptcy context may trigger section 2J1.3(b)(2)’s enhancement and whether Norris’s false declarations before the bankruptcy court caused the unnecessary expenditure of government or court resources. The application of section 2J1.3(b)(2)’s enhancement for false declarations causing the expenditure of resources in a bankruptcy proceeding presents an issue of first impression in this Court. Neither section 2J1.3’s language nor its commentary distinguishes between perjury in the criminal context and perjury in civil or bankruptcy proceedings. See United States v. Holland, 22 F.3d 1040, 1046-48 & n. 11 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Other courts have held that a defendant Options: A. holding that cr 60b applies to criminal as well as civil judgments B. holding that the sentencing guideline governing perjury cases section 2j13 applies to perjury committed in civil as well as criminal proceedings C. holding rule 38 applies to frivolous criminal appeals as well as civil appeals D. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds E. holding that the rules governing criminal cases apply to 3582c2 proceedings

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the sentencing guideline governing perjury cases section 2j13 applies to perjury committed in civil as well as criminal proceedings
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 contains the entire agreement among the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, discussions, negotiations and undertakings, whether written or oral, between the parties with respect thereto.

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: even in the Hugheses and Calhoun’s trial brief, they argued that the Hugheses had sustained $9,262.50 in damage but did not argue that Calhoun had sustained any damage. Because we conclude that the damages awards were not supported by evidence in the record, we must reverse the trial court’s judgment on this issue. See, e.g., Blair v. Cooper, 392 So.2d 1205, 1207 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). V. Additionally, the Darnalls argue that the trial court erred in admitting a “Google Earth” aerial photograph and an Alabama Atlas and Gazetteer as exhibits. We need not determine whether these exhibits were admissible, because, even if their admission was error, the Darnalls have not shown how the error was injurious to their ease. See New Plan Realty Trust v. Morgan, 792 So.2d 351, 363 (Ala.2000) (<HOLDING>). They argue that the Google Earth map showed Options: A. holding that the appellants bear the burden of showing that an error in the admission of evidence has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the appellants quoting atkins v lee 603 so2d 937 946 ala1992 quoting in turn rule 45 ala rapp p B. holding that defendants bear the burden of showing that the challenged act was objectively reasonable citation omitted C. recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings D. holding that any error in the exclusion of evidence is cured by the subsequent admission of the evidence E. holding that plaintiffs bear the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants have failed to adhere to the requirements of nepa

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the appellants bear the burden of showing that an error in the admission of evidence has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the appellants quoting atkins v lee 603 so2d 937 946 ala1992 quoting in turn rule 45 ala rapp p
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: aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1951 (West 2000); and two counts of discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000). At the initial sentencing hearing, the district court granted Robinson’s request for a downward departure for diminished capacity over the Government’s objection and sentenced Robinson to a total of 384 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. Robinson appealed his convictions and sentence; the Government cross-appealed, contending the district court erred in granting the downward departure. We affirmed Robinson’s convictions but reversed his sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing. See United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 288, 163 Options: A. holding that united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 does not provide a basis for a sentence reduction under 18 usc 3582c B. holding that blakely and united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 are not retroactive on collateral review C. holding that united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did nothing to alter the rule that judges cannot depart below a statutorily provided minimum sentence except upon the governments motion on the basis of substantial assistance D. holding that 3582c does not apply to a person seeking resentencing under united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 E. holding that united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did not alter the standard of review for the interpretation and application of the guidelines

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did nothing to alter the rule that judges cannot depart below a statutorily provided minimum sentence except upon the governments motion on the basis of substantial assistance
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Grantee’s employment with the Company or a Subsidiary terminates before December 31, 20[__] and before the occurrence of a Change in Control due to the Grantee’s death, Disability or Retirement, the Company shall pay to the Grantee or his or her executor or administrator, as the case may be, at the time described in Section 6 and based on the level of achievement of Total Stockholder Return during the Performance Period, a pro rata number of the Target Performance Shares based on the number of full months during the Performance Period and prior to January 1, 20[__] during which the Grantee was employed by the Company, and the remaining performance shares will be forfeited. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Change in Control occurs after the termination of the Grantee’s employment due to death, Disability or Retirement but before the end of the Performance Period, the Grantee shall earn at the time of such Change in Control the pro rata number (determined as specified above) of such number of the Performance Shares as shall be determined in accordance with Section 3(a)(i), and any Performance Shares that are not earned on the CIC Date pursuant to this sentence shall be forfeited.

assistant: Disability
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 audited consolidated financial statements of Borrower and its Subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, copies of each of which have been furnished to Administrative Agent and each Lender, and the consolidated results of operations of Borrower and its Subsidiaries for the periods ended on such dates, all in accordance with GAAP, fairly present in all material respects the consolidated financial condition of Borrower and its Subsidiaries as at such dates. Since such date there has been (i) except as set forth in Schedule 4.01(f) hereto, no material increase in the liabilities of Borrower and its Subsidiaries or any Guarantor and (ii) no Material Adverse Change in Borrower, any Subsidiary or any Guarantor.

assistant: Financial Statements
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 by threats of force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Berardi, 675 F.2d at 897 n. 3. 4 . Because the district court instructed the jury that it was required to unanimously agree as to which particular firearm Bu-chmeier acquired or received with regard to each count, we need not reach the issue of whether it would have been sufficient for the juiy to have simply agreed that Buchmeier possessed at least one of the firearms listed in each count without agreeing which particular firearm he possessed. See United States v. Verrecchia, 196 F.3d 294, 298-301 (1st Cir. 1999) Options: A. holding that without such a showing the government may only charge the defendant with one violation of 922g1 regardless of the actual quantity of firearms involved B. holding that period of proscription for firearm ownership under section 922g1 was indefinite C. holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used D. holding that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted E. holding that because a jury need only agree that a defendant possessed a firearm in order to find a defendant guilty of violating 922g1 a unanimity instruction was not required where defendant was charged with one count of violating 922g1 and multiple firearms were listed in that count

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that because a jury need only agree that a defendant possessed a firearm in order to find a defendant guilty of violating 922g1 a unanimity instruction was not required where defendant was charged with one count of violating 922g1 and multiple firearms were listed in that count
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 the asylum officer’s assessment of Abramyan’s credibility, the reasons for that assessment, and the asylum officer’s recommendation. Welsh Dec. ¶ 19. Assessments of credibility and recommendations are “quintessential deliberative information.” Anguimate v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 918 F.Supp.2d 13, 19 (D.D.C.2013) (finding that USCIS properly withheld an Assessment to Refer under the deliberative process privilege). Even the factual information in the Assessment to Refer can be considered deliberative, because it is a “distillation” of the facts, not a “verbatim transcript.” Welsh Dec. ¶ 21. The asylum officer’s particular selection of facts may reveal USCIS’s deliberative process. See Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504, 513-14 (D.C.Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Welsh’s description of the document is Options: A. holding that deliberative process privilege protects written advice opinions and recommendations to public body from outside consultants obtained during public bodys decistonmaking process B. recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications C. holding that there is no statutory deliberative process privilege in arizona and declining to create such a privilege under the common law D. recognizing deliberative process privilege for factual summaries culled by the agency from a much larger universe of facts because they reflect an exercise of judgment as to what issues are most relevant to the predecisional findings and recommendations E. holding that internal emails about how to present an agency decision to the public were covered by the deliberative process privilege

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing deliberative process privilege for factual summaries culled by the agency from a much larger universe of facts because they reflect an exercise of judgment as to what issues are most relevant to the predecisional findings and recommendations
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: evidence from Hava that she acted properly and requiring Trustee to prove that she acted improperly is too large for us to ignore. VII. Trustee further contends that the bankruptcy court was wrong to dismiss on summary judgment the contention that Bay Island’s claim on Debtor’s assets should be equitably subordinated. We decline to reverse the bankruptcy court on this ground. A creditor’s claim can generally be subordinated under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c) if three circumstances are satisfied: (1) the claimant engaged in inequitable conduct; (2) that conduct injured other creditors; and (3) subordination is consistent with other bankruptcy law. In re ASI Reactivation, Inc., 934 F.2d 1315, 1320 (4th Cir.1991); see also U.S. v. Noland, 517 U.S. 535, 538-39, 116 S.Ct. 1524, 134 L.Ed.2d 748 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Trustee suggests three grounds on which Bay Options: A. recognizing that equitable doctrines such as subordination are available for use in some bankruptcy cases B. recognizing that the alter ego doctrine is an equitable doctrine which should be used to prevent inequitable results C. holding that 510c was intended to incorporate existing doctrine of equitable subordination as exemplified by in re mobile steel co 563 f2d 692 5th cir1977 D. holding that application of equitable tolling doctrine was appropriate as to statute of limitations in abatement and refund proceedings under cireumstances in that case E. recognizing doctrine

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 510c was intended to incorporate existing doctrine of equitable subordination as exemplified by in re mobile steel co 563 f2d 692 5th cir1977
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Employment Period, the Company shall reimburse Executive for all reasonable business expenses incurred by him in the course of performing his duties and responsibilities under this Agreement which are consistent with the Company’s policies in effect from time to time with respect to travel, entertainment and other business expenses, subject to the Company’s requirements with respect to reporting and documentation of such expenses.

assistant: Expenses
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 Board may grant Awards consisting of SARs entitling the holder, upon exercise, to receive an amount of Common Stock or cash or a combination thereof (such form to be determined by the Board) determined in whole or in part by reference to appreciation, from and after the date of grant, in the fair market value of a share of Common Stock over the exercise price established pursuant to Section 7(c). The date as of which such appreciation is determined shall be the exercise date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Employee agrees not to use, reproduce, disclose, or make available the Company’s Confidential Information for their own benefit or the benefit of any person or entity other than the Company, except as reasonably necessary for the performance of the Employee’s duties as an employee of the Company, without prior written consent of the Company, unless and to the extent that any Confidential Information (i) becomes generally known to and available for use by the public other than as a result of the Employee’s improper acts or omissions to act or (ii) is required to be disclosed pursuant to any applicable law, regulatory action or court order; provided, however, that the Employee must give the Company prompt written notice of any such legal requirement, disclose no more information than is so required, and cooperate fully with all efforts by the Company to obtain a protective order or similar confidentiality treatment for such information. Upon the termination of the Employee’s employment with the Company, Employee agrees to deliver to the Company, upon request, all memoranda, notes, plans, records, reports and other documents (including copies thereof and electronic media) relating to the business of the Company (including, without limitation, all Confidential Information) that Employee may then possess or have under Employee’s control, other than such documents as are generally or publicly known (provided, that such documents are not known as a result of Employee’s breach or actions in violation of this Agreement); and at any time thereafter, if any such materials are brought to Employee’s attention or Employee discovers them in Employee’s possession, Employee must deliver such materials to the Company immediately upon such notice or discovery. Employee also agrees to indemnify and hold the Company harmless for any loss, claim or damages, including attorney’s fees or costs, arising out of or related to the unauthorized disclosure or use of the Confidential Information by Employee.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to this general rule, however, where the defendant has a “special relationship with either the dangerous person or the potential victim.” Shepard, 390 N.W.2d at 241; see also Welke, 375 N.W.2d at 405; Duvall, 362 N.W.2d at 278. In addition to a special relationship, whether a duty exists also depends upon “the foreseeability that the actor’s conduct would create a risk of harm to the victim.” Duvall, 362 N.W.2d at 278. In Shepard, for example, a physician failed to diagnose a woman’s spinal meningitis, and she subsequently passed it on to her infant son, Eric, who died two days later. The defendant hospital argued that it owed no duty to Eric because he was never a patient. The court held that a physician-patient relationship is a special relationship that may gi 1, 489 (1983) (<HOLDING>). In this case, it is undisputed that there was Options: A. holding that psychiatrist had duty to protect individuals endangered by his epileptic patient B. holding that a psychiatrist had no duty to detain a patient who killed himself and injured his wife because the patient was outside of the scope of the facilitys range of observation and control even when the psychiatrist agreed to treat the patient the patient had suicidal tendencies and the psychologist took the patient into custody but then later permitted him to leave C. holding that when a psychiatrist determines or should determine that a patient poses a serious threat of danger to a third party the psychiatrist has a duty of reasonable care to that party D. holding that a psychiatrist owed a duty to a person foreseeably injured by his patient E. holding law enforcement owed duty similar to that owed by dshs under rcw 2644050

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a psychiatrist owed a duty to a person foreseeably injured by his patient
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 appeal established by section 1292(b).” Appellee’s Br. at 45-46. B. As the foregoing discussion indicates, Philip Morris asks us — and the court now agrees — to decide an issue (1) not briefed in the motion leading up to the certified order, (2) not decided in the district court’s opinion accompanying the certified order, (3) not raised by Philip Morris in its request for certification, (4) not discussed in the order granting certification, (5) not raised by Philip Morris in its section 1292(b) petition before this court, and (6) decided in an entirely different order which Philip Morris could at any time have asked the dist the certified order to address other orders made in the case.” Id.; see also United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 677, 107 S.Ct. 3054, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Both “[c]om-mentators and courts have Options: A. holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court B. holding that the court of appeals erred in addressing a claim not raised in the certified order though closely related to it C. holding a new constitutional challenge not raised in district court was not properly before court of appeals D. holding that appeal of order became moot when order was complied with and court of appeals was notified and that court of appeals erred in issuing advisory opinion on merits of appeal E. holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the court of appeals erred in addressing a claim not raised in the certified order though closely related to it
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the motion without first examining the moving party’s submission to determine if it has met its burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact remains for trial[,]” Amaker v. Foley, 274 F.3d 677, 681 (2d Cir.2001), and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, see Champion v. Artuz, 76 F.3d 483, 486 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). Moreover, in determining whether the moving party has met its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue for trial, the district court may not rely solely on the statement of undisputed facts contained in the moving party’s Rule 56.1 statement. Rather, the court must be satisfied that the citations to evidence in the record support the movant’s assertions. See Giannullo v. City of N.Y., 322 F.3d 139, 143 n. 5 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 2. Analysis Xiotech has moved for partial Options: A. holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion B. holding that not verifying in the record the assertions in the motion for summary judgment would derogate the truthfinding functions of the judicial process by substituting convenience for facts C. holding that the court had an adequate record to grant the defendants motion for summary judgment because the relevant evidence would have been in plaintiffs possession D. holding that this court does not entertain arguments made for the first time on appeal as the case must be decided on the facts contained in the record and not on assertions in the brief E. holding that cjredibility determinations the weighing of the evidence and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are not functions of a judge ruling on a motion for summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that not verifying in the record the assertions in the motion for summary judgment would derogate the truthfinding functions of the judicial process by substituting convenience for facts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive’s initial annual base salary shall be $415,000. The Executive’s base salary shall be reviewed annually by the Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board (the “Compensation Committee”). The base salary in effect at any given time is referred to herein as “Base Salary.” The Base Salary shall be payable in a manner that is consistent with the Company’s usual payroll practices for executive officers, but no less frequently than semi-monthly. The Executive shall not be required to defer any portion of Base Salary.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Fourth Amendment warrant requirement — the evidence here, and the logical inferences therefrom, demonstrate that the police would have obtained Heath’s currency during a valid search conducted pursuant to a well-established exception to the warrant requirement, namely, a search incident to a lawful arrest. See United States v. Allen, 986 F.2d 1354, 1357 (10th Cir.1993) (“[E]ven assuming that the [pat-down search of the defendant was conducted] prior to [the discovery of] the cocaine [on his companion], [the defendant] could ... have been searched seconds later, once the cocaine provided probable cause to arrest.... Therefore, the search was incident to a lawful arrest regardless of the exact sequence of events (emphases added); United States v. Romero, 692 F.2d 699, 704 (10th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Options: A. 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 B. holding that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendant a rear seat passenger of a car for possession of marijuana based on the discovery of two marijuana seeds in the front of the vehicle C. holding that the facts that the vehicle described in the tip was parked outside the home that allen gave inconsistent answers to officers questioning and that in addition the defendant fit the physical description of the suspect were sufficient to support the officers reasonable inference that the defendant was actually the suspect and therefore that there was probable cause to arrest him D. recognizing without inquiring whether the officers would necessarily have arrested the defendant that the discovery of the marijuana in the van provided probable cause to arrest the defendant and upon arrest the officers unquestionably would have searched the defendant and discovered the marijuana in his pocket E. holding that officers had objective probable cause to search the pocket of a jacket found on the seat of the defendants truck where the discovery of marijuana in two different locations in the truck combined with the defendants possession of marijuana reasonably led officers to believe that other caches would be found elsewhere in the vehicle

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing without inquiring whether the officers would necessarily have arrested the defendant that the discovery of the marijuana in the van provided probable cause to arrest the defendant and upon arrest the officers unquestionably would have searched the defendant and discovered the marijuana in his pocket