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: equal terms provision codifies the SmithLukumi line of precedent,” the court reasoned, so “a violation of § (b)’s equal treatment provision, consistent with the analysis employed in Lukumi, must undergo strict scrutiny.” Id. at 1232. The municipality’s proffered justification for excluding churches and synagogues from the business district — the “interests of retail synergy” — flunked the compelling-interest test. Id. at 1235. The Eleventh Circuit completed its analysis in Midrash Sephardi by considering whether the equal-terms provision was a permissible use of Congress’s § 5 enforcement power as understood in City of Boeme. The court concluded that it was, largely because the equal-terms provision codified the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence. Id. at 1236-40 (<HOLDING>). In two subsequent cases, the Eleventh Circuit Options: A. holding that discrimination based on religion is subjected to strict scrutiny whether a claim arises under the establishment clause the free exercise clause of equal protection clause B. holding no violation of federal establishment clause C. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection D. holding that 2000ccbl reflects freeexercise jurisprudence and is consistent with existing equal protection and establishment clause caselaw E. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 2000ccbl reflects freeexercise jurisprudence and is consistent with existing equal protection and establishment clause caselaw
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 5.8 notice and take-down if skype receives any notification that any material that you post , upload , edit , host , share and/or publish on the skype website or through the software ( excluding your private communications ) ( `` user submission '' ) is inappropriate , infringes any rights of any third party , or if skype wishes to remove your user submission for any reason whatsoever , skype reserves the right to automatically remove such user submission for any reason immediately or within such other timescales as may be decided from time to time by skype in its sole discretion .

assistant: Content removal
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: Should any provision of this Agreement be held by a court or arbitral authority of competent jurisdiction to be enforceable only if modified, or if any portion of this Agreement shall be held to be unenforceable and thus stricken, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, the balance of which shall continue to be binding upon the Parties with any such modification to become a part hereof and treated as though originally set forth in this Agreement. The Parties further agree that any such court or arbitral authority is expressly authorized to modify any such unenforceable provision of this Agreement instead of severing such unenforceable provision from this Agreement in its entirety, whether by rewriting the offending provision, deleting any or all of the offending provision, adding additional language to this Agreement, or by making such other modifications as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and agreement of the Parties as embodied in this Agreement to the maximum extent permitted by law. The Parties expressly agree that this Agreement as so modified by the court or arbitral authority shall be binding upon and enforceable against each of them. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions hereof, and if such provision or provisions are not modified as provided above, this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provisions had not been set forth in it.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that the award and receipt of the Shares, the expiration of the Restrictions, the payment of dividends on the Shares or any other event results in your realization of income or wages which for federal, state and/or local income or other employment tax purposes is, in the opinion of the Company, subject to withholding of tax by the Company, you shall pay to the Company an amount equal to the withholding tax amount that the Company determines applies with respect to such event or make arrangements satisfactory to the Company regarding the payment of such tax, which arrangements may include your agreement to surrender the Shares that have become free of the Restrictions. Otherwise, the Company may, at its discretion and to the extent it determines is necessary to pay such withholding tax amount, withhold any such withholding tax amount from your salary, dividends paid by CyrusOne on Shares, any Shares that have become free of Restrictions or any other compensation payable to you.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: proceeded to a bench trial. The district court found Kooima guilty. Kooima appealed. We transferred the cáse to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. Kooi-ma sought further review, which we granted. III. Issues. The issue before the court is whether the investigatory stop of Kooima by the Rock Valley police violated his rights against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. IV. Standard of Review. Kooima argues the district court should have granted his motion to suppress on state and federal constitutional grounds because the State deprived him of his right against unlawful searches and seizures. State v. Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d 260, 264 (Iowa 2010) (<HOLDING>). We review constitutional issues de novo. Options: A. recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights B. holding that a defendants personal involvement in an alleged deprivation of constitutional rights is a necessary element of a 1983 complaint C. recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel D. recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states E. recognizing a motion to suppress based on the deprivation of the defendants constitutional right against unlawful searches and seizures

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing a motion to suppress based on the deprivation of the defendants constitutional right against unlawful searches and seizures
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: Specification 2, alleging larceny of $10.00). This single plea of guilty to larceny was made conditional pursuant to R.C.M. 910 when the defense counsel, upon entering pleas, stated, “but for the military judge’s overruling of the motion to suppress he would have pled not guilty [to Specification 2 under Charge III].” Record at 125-127. However, the appellant placed no conditions on any of his other pleas of guilty. An unconditional guilty plea that ultimately results in a guilty finding waives any speedy trial issue as to that offense. See R.C.M. 707(e), 801(g), 905(e), 910(a)(2); United States v. Birge, 52 M.J. 209 (1999)(sug-gesting that an appellant may waive an Article 10, UCMJ, speedy trial issue through a valid guilty plea); United States v. Kossman, 38 M.J. 258, 262 (C.M.A.1993)(<HOLDING>)(quoting United States v. King, 30 M.J. 59, 66 Options: A. holding that aggressiveness with which defendant asserted his speedy trial right was lacking because he merely filed one demand for speedy trial and opposed his original counsels withdrawal B. holding that like most rights speedy trial can be waived C. holding right to speedy trial is nonjurisdictional and therefore waived by voluntary and unconditional guilty plea D. holding speedy trial act does not apply to petty offenses E. holding a trial court erred in determining that a motion to suppress was waived by a speedy trial demand

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that like most rights speedy trial can be waived
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 BORROWER, EACH OTHER LOAN PARTY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT AND EACH LENDER PARTY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM (WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS, THE ADVANCES, THE LETTERS OF CREDIT OR THE ACTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT OR ANY LENDER PARTY IN THE NEGOTIATION, ADMINISTRATION, PERFORMANCE OR ENFORCEMENT THEREOF.

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: of the members of this class” of Mexiean-Americans); Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500, 528, 46 S.Ct. 619, 70 L.Ed. 1059 (1926) (invalidating ordinance requiring that accountant records of businesses be kept in English, Spanish, or local dialects of the Philippines, thereby excluding the use of Chinese); Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, 298, 47 S.Ct. 406, 71 L.Ed. 646 (1927) (“the Constitution p 61 n. 1 (9th Cir.1980) (plaintiff class defined by district court as.“Spanish-Surnamed” or “Spanish Language” persons), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919, 101 S.Ct. 1364, 67 L.Ed.2d 345 (1981); United States v. Uvalde Consol. Indep. School Dist., 625 F.2d 547, 553 (5th Cir.1980) (“the fourteenth amendment clearly extends to protection of any group of persons invidiou upp. 919 (S.D.Tex.1979) (<HOLDING>); Hernandez v. Erlenbusch, 368 F.Supp. 752 Options: A. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii B. holding that speakenglishonly rule violated title vii because defendant could not show business necessity and uniform enforcement C. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original D. holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case E. holding that final responsibility for enforcement of title vii is vested with federal courts

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that speakenglishonly rule violated title vii because defendant could not show business necessity and uniform enforcement
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 mere imposition of hardship on family relationships ... necessarily accompanies the order of any prison sentence”). Here, the district court explained that a below-Guidelines sentence was warranted because the Guidelines range was based on Edwards’s intended loss, not the actual loss he caused. But it is unexceptional that the actual losses were less than the intended losses. I expect the amount the run-of-the-mill thief intends to steal is usually greater than the amount he actually steals. The fact that the losses attributed to Edwards were intended rather than actual simply reflects the fact that Edwards got caught. He should not benefit from that fact. Fourth, we should consider whether the district court “base[d] the sentence on impermissible factors.” Hunt, 521 F.3d at 649 (<HOLDING>). Here, although the district court’s sentence Options: A. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint B. holding trial court abused its discretion when it struck the appellants intervention C. recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard D. holding that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a belowguidelines sentence in part because it disagreed with the jurys finding that the defendant had the intent to defraud E. holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a belowguidelines sentence in part because it disagreed with the jurys finding that the defendant had the intent to defraud
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 appear to have applied their Duke double jeopardy analysis of the sexual battery statute to the same list of distinct sex acts proscribed in section 800.04(4), Florida Statutes. See, e.g., Samuel v. State, 925 So.2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (upholding multiple convictions for lewd and lascivious battery over double jeopardy challenge based upon finding that the acts were both distinct in character and temporally separated so that the defendant had sufficient time to reflect and form a new criminal intent); Coffield v. State, 872 So.2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversing lewd and lascivious battery conviction on grounds that evidence did not reflect sufficient pause between two distinct sex acts to avoid double jeopardy violation); Cabanela v. State, 871 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). To further confuse the issue, even though we Options: A. holding that acts of oral anal and vaginal penetration as prescribed by statute defining lewd and lascivious battery are distinct criminal acts such that separate punishments for those acts do not violate double jeopardy despite the fact that they occurred in the same criminal episode B. holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy C. holding that when state charges defendant with both unlawfully using twoway communications device and traveling during same time period state charges single criminal episode regardless of whether evidence could support finding of separate criminal episodes and double jeopardy considerations require that communications charge be subsumed within traveling charge D. holding that double jeopardy considerations preclude multiple convictions and sentences for lewd and lascivious behavior which arise out of a single criminal episode where there is no significant spatial andor temporal break in the episode E. holding that the double jeopardy clause was not violated by two convictions arising from the same criminal episode because the crimes of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools each had an element the other did not and were thus separate crimes

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that double jeopardy considerations preclude multiple convictions and sentences for lewd and lascivious behavior which arise out of a single criminal episode where there is no significant spatial andor temporal break in the episode
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 will become effective on the eighth day after it has been signed by both Parties (the “Effective Date”), provided that Employee has not revoked the Agreement before that date. This Agreement shall become effective or enforceable, and the consideration provided herein shall not be payable, until the Effective Date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts without regard to conflict of laws principles. You agree that all disputes arising under or out of this Agreement shall be brought in courts of competent jurisdiction within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and you hereby consent to jurisdiction in courts located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with respect to all such matters.

assistant: Jurisdictions
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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 358 U.S. 331 79 S.Ct. 350 3 L.Ed.2d 344 William P. ROGERS, Attorney General of the United States as Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, petitioner,v.CALUMET NATIONAL BANK OF HAMMOND, Substituted Trustee, etc., et al. No. 468. Supreme Court of the United States January 26, 1959 Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Townsend, Messrs. George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel, for petitioner. Messrs. Charles Levin and Curt C. Silberman, for respondents. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Indiana. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. We are of the view that under Silesian-American Corp. v. Markham, 2 Cir., 156 F.2d 793, 796, affirmed, 332 U.S. 469, 68 S.Ct. 179, 92 L.Ed. 81, a state court is without power to review the discretion exercised by the Attorney General of the United States under federal law. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded to the Appellate Court of Indiana. On remand the Indiana courts are of course free to consider other questions presented by this record in light of General License 94, 12 Fed.Reg. 1457, as it may have affected the definition of 'national' in Executive Order 9095, 7 Fed.Reg. 1971, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 6 note, and Executive Order 8389, 5 Fed.Reg. 1400, 12 U.S.C.A. § 95a note. See GMO. Niehaus & Co. v. United States, 153 F.Supp. 428, 139 Ct.Cl. 605.

assistant: 9
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 failure of either party to insist on strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement by the other party shall not be deemed a waiver of that term, covenant, or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any right or power at any one time or times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of that right or power for all or any other times.

assistant: Waivers
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 evidence is a legal issue we review de novo. United States v. Lewis, 240 F.3d 866, 870 (10th Cir.2001). On appeal, we “ask only whether taking the evidence ... together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom — in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1228, 1239 (10th Cir.1999). The jury convicted Defendant of possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act. 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Defendant alleges the Government did not prove he knew the feature of the shotgun (its length) that brought it within the scope of the Act. See Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 602, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994) (<HOLDING>). At trial, Defendant testified he had no Options: A. holding that the government must prove the defendant knew of the features of the firearm that brought it within the scope of the act B. 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 C. holding that the government was required to prove that the defendant lacked a license to possess a firearm but not that the defendant possessed the firearm for any duration of time D. holding the government must demonstrate the defendant knew of the characteristics of the firearm that required it to be registered E. holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the government must demonstrate the defendant knew of the characteristics of the firearm that required it to be registered
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 case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Assumption Agreement should be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein and in the Guarantee and Collateral Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby (it being understood that the invalidity of a particular provision in a particular jurisdiction shall not in and of itself affect the validity of such provision in any other jurisdiction). The parties hereto shall endeavor in good-faith negotiations to replace the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions with valid provisions the economic effect of which comes as close as possible to that of the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: colloquy. We have held: A competent election by the defendant to represent himself and to decline the assistance of counsel once made before the court carries forward through all further proceedings in that case unless appointment of counsel for subsequent proceedings is expressly requested by the defendant or there are circumstances which suggest that the waiver was limited to a particular stage of the proceedings. United States v. Springer, 51 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir.1995) (concluding that the defendant’s retrial was “obviously” a continuation of the criminal prosecution and previous waiver was intended to stand absent an attempt to withdraw it (quoting Arnold v. United States, 414 F.2d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.1969)); see also White v. United States, 354 F.2d 22, 23 (9th Cir.1965) (<HOLDING>). Our jurisprudence on this point is harmonious Options: A. holding that constitution protected right to counsel at sentencing even where it was waived at trial B. holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence C. holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage D. holding that a valid waiver of counsel at an early stage of the proceeding does not continue in effect through a subsequent stage E. holding that at resentencing the district court was entitled to assume that the waiver was still in effect and was not required to again advise defendant of his right to counsel where defendant had waived counsel at the plea stage

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that at resentencing the district court was entitled to assume that the waiver was still in effect and was not required to again advise defendant of his right to counsel where defendant had waived counsel at the plea stage
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between LICENSOR and LICENSEE with respect to the subject matter hereof, and subject to any more restrictive prior confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement between LICENSOR and LICENSEE, this Agreement supersedes all previous agreements by and between LICENSOR and LICENSEE or their predecessors, as well as all proposals, oral or written, and all prior negotiations, conversations or discussions between the parties related to the subject matter of this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that they have not been induced to enter into the Agreement by any representations or statements, oral or written, not expressly contained herein.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: control shall exist through direct or indirect ownership of more than 50 % of the nominal value of the issued equity share capital or more than 50 % of the shares entitling the holders to vote for the election of the members of the board of directors or persons performing similar functions .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: cause of action only where a defendant willfully files. information returns that misrepresent the amount of payments made. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs tax fraud allegations in the Amended Complaint fail to state a claim for relief under § 7434(a), and Count II must therefore be dismissed. An appropriate Order will issue. 1 . 29 U.S.C. § 201 etseq. , 2 . These allegations are derived from the Amended Complaint. See Columbia Venture, LLC v. Dewberry & Davis, LLC, 604 F.3 Cir.2015) (affirming judgment for plaintiffs where defendant falsely. claimed to have made payments); Vandenheede v. Vecchio, 541 Fed.Appx. 577, 579-82 (6th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal for failure to plead fraud with particularity); Katzman v. Essex Waterfront Owners LLC, 660 F.3d 565, 568 (2d Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Cavoto v. Hayes, 634 F.3d 921, 924 (7th Options: A. holding failure to file statement of points is no bar to appeal B. holding blank return did not provide sufficient information despite taxpayers income being below the filing threshold C. holding that information furnished to preparer of tax return is not privileged D. holding that intentional failure to file an information return is not a willful filing E. holding reasonable an agency determination that a request for an investigative file did not include the employment file

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that intentional failure to file an information return is not a willful filing
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 this Agreement, unless the Bank and the Borrower otherwise agree in writing, the singular includes the plural and the plural the singular; words importing any gender include the other genders; references to statutes are to be construed as including all statutory provisions consolidating, amending or replacing the statute referred to; the word “or” shall be deemed to include “and/or”, the words “including”, “includes” and “include” shall be deemed to be followed by the words “without limitation”; references to articles, sections (or subdivisions of sections) or exhibits are to those of this Agreement; and references to agreements and other contractual instruments shall be deemed to include all subsequent amendments and other modifications to such instruments, but only to the extent such amendments and other modifications are not prohibited by the terms of this Agreement. Section headings in this Agreement are included for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement for any other purpose. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, all accounting terms shall be interpreted and all accounting determinations shall be made in accordance with GAAP.

assistant: Interpretations
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: this extraordinary relief, Harris cited a declaration in which his former lawyer swore that his representation in the first habeas proceeding had been ineffective. We ruled in Rodriguez v. Mitchell, 252 F.3d 191 (2d Cir.2001), that relief under Rule 60(b) is available with respect to a previous habeas proceeding only when the Rule 60(b) motion attacks the integrity of the habeas proceeding and not the underlying criminal conviction. Harris has cast his Rule 60(b)(6) motion as such an attack on the integrity of his initial habeas proceeding, although the ground cited by Harris for reopening the first habeas proceeding would (if valid) require the habeas court to consider whether the sentencing judge committed reversible error. See Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 534 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Harris’s attack on the integrity of the Options: A. holding that an ineffectivenessofappellatecounsel claim is only valid if the appellate error prejudiced the defendant B. holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error C. holding that appellate review is precluded when the error is invited D. holding that where the state commits a discovery violation the standard for harmless error is extraordinarily high a defendant is presumed to be procedurally prejudiced if there is a reasonable probability that the defendants trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred and a states discovery violation is harmless only if the appellate court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced E. 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

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an ineffectivenessofappellatecounsel claim is only valid if the appellate error prejudiced the defendant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No ERISA Event has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur that, when taken together with all other such ERISA Events for which liability is reasonably expected to occur, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. The present value of all accumulated benefit obligations under each Plan (based on the assumptions used for purposes of FASB Statement 87) did not, as of the date of the most recent financial statements reflecting such amounts, exceed by more than $5,000,000 the fair market value of the assets of such Plan, and the present value of all accumulated benefit obligations of all underfunded Plans (based on the assumptions used for purposes of FASB Statement 87) did not, as of the date of the most recent financial statements reflecting such amounts, exceed by more than $5,000,000 the fair market value of the assets of all such underfunded Plans.

assistant: Erisa
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 supersedes, amends and restates all prior agreements and understandings between the parties, oral or written, including, without limitation, the Executive Agreement. No modification, termination or attempted waiver shall be valid unless in writing, signed by the party against whom such modification, termination or waiver is sought to be enforced.

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: in driving, but merely her interest in driving a vehicle that displays a preferred set of vanity plates. Whether, in this particular case, this interest is substantial enough to be regarded as a “protected interest” under the Due Process Clause — a question which we need not answer — the interest does not appear to be as significant as, for example, the loss of income or public-assistance benefits. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). Accordingly, Perry’s interest does not weigh heavily in the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, and certainly it weighs less heavily than the state’s interest. As to the final relevant factor under Mathews v. Eldridge, there is little risk of an erroneous deprivation of an individual’s asserted intere Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); Sabree v. Parking Violations Bureau, City of Options: A. holding that towing of illegally parked vehicles without opportunity for prior hearing did not violate due process B. holding that doctrine does not violate due process C. holding that a district court grievance committees reliance on a state courts findings without holding an independent hearing did not violate the attorneys due process rights D. holding that district court may order hearing as remedy for termination of public employee without due process E. holding that due process was not violated in a twentyseven day delay in holding a hearing after an illegally parked vehicle was towed

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that towing of illegally parked vehicles without opportunity for prior hearing did not violate due process
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: On the Closing Date, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, substantially concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchasers, severally and not jointly, agree to purchase (i) up to an aggregate of $1,111,111 (which includes 10% of original issue discount) Stated Value of shares of Preferred Stock with an aggregate Stated Value for each Purchaser equal to such Purchaser’s Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by such Purchaser, and (ii) Warrants as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a). Each Purchaser shall deliver to the Company, via wire transfer, immediately available funds equal to its Subscription Amount, and the Company shall deliver to each Purchaser its respective shares of Preferred Stock and Warrants, as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a), and the Company and each Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. Upon satisfaction or waiver of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Closing shall occur at the offices of Sichenzia Ross or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree. The Company covenants that, if the Purchaser delivers a Notice of Conversion (as defined in the Certificate of Designation) to convert any shares of Preferred Stock between the date hereof and the Closing Date, the Company shall deliver Conversion Shares to the Purchaser on the Closing Date in connection with such Notice of Conversion.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, together with any stock option, restricted stock or restricted stock unit agreements between Employee and the Company constitute the entire agreement between Employee and the Company and contain all of the agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and this Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: do not urge as grounds for relief 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1985 and 1986, or 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680, those issues have been abandoned. 4 . 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 5 . 462 U.S. 367, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983). 6 . Gleason v. Malcom, 718 F.2d 1044 (11th Cir.1983). 7 . 487 U.S. 412, 108 S.Ct. 2460, 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988). 8 . Pub.L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 et seq. (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C.A.). 9 . S.Rep. No. 95-969, 2nd Sess. 3 (1978), 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 2723, 2725. 10 s claims have been adjudicated. The summary judgment record, however, gives no indication that Aletha Rollins pursued her administrative remedies. 18 . 5 U.S.C.A. § 2302(a)(2)(A) (listing personnel actions covered by statute). 19 . Bivens v. Six U 1048 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>), quoted approvingly in Gremillion v. Options: A. holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment B. holding that various fifth and sixth amendment protections apply to juvenile proceedings C. holding that bush analysis applies to claims under first fourth fifth and sixth amendment violations D. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating E. holding the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that bush analysis applies to claims under first fourth fifth and sixth amendment violations
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 Creasman court concluded that because the real property and account at issue were titled in the name of the deceased female partner, “they must both be regarded as belonging to her estate.” Id. Notably, the Creasman court also treated the division of property between the intimate partners as an initial question of what property would become part of the decedent’s estate. See id. ¶21 In subsequent cases, this court distinguished Creasman and began to question the validity of its presumption. Latham v. Hennessey, 87 Wn.2d 550, 553-55, 554 P.2d 1057 (1976) (noting that this court had developed numerous exceptions to the Creasman presumption to avoid inequitable results and indicating a willingness to overrule it); In re Estate of Thornton, 81 Wn.2d 72, 76-77, 81, 499 P.2d 864 (1972) (<HOLDING>). In 1984, in In re Marriage of Lindsey, 101 Options: A. recognizing that a living intimate partner could demonstrate an implied partnership existed despite the creasman presumption B. holding that absent an agreement to the contrary any partner can act as an agent of the partnership when apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership C. recognizing that in a divorce action one partys limited partnership interest could not be assigned to the other party without the consent of the general partner D. holding one partner can not sic maintain an action at law against another partner to recover an amount claimed by him by reason of partnership transactions until there has been a final settlement of the affairs of the partnership E. holding a mechanic working in a garage owned by a partnership is an employee of the partnership not the individual partner

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that a living intimate partner could demonstrate an implied partnership existed despite the creasman presumption
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: Manager shall analyze all bills received for services, work and supplies in connection with maintaining and operating the Properties, pay all such bills when due, and, if requested by Owner, pay, when due, utility and water charges, sewer rent and assessments, and any other amount payable in respect to the Properties. All bills shall be paid by Manager within the time required to obtain discounts, if any. Owner may from time to time request that Manager forward certain bills to Owner promptly after receipt, and Manager shall comply with any such request. Manager shall pay all bills, assessments, real property taxes, insurance premiums and any other amount payable in respect to the Properties out of the Account (as defined in Section 2.5 ). All expenses shall be billed at net cost ( i.e. , less all rebates, commissions, discounts and allowances, however designated).

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: with customers responding to its Yellow Pages ads. Indeed, given the importance of customer referrals in the moving business, the harm would be ongoing — that is, customers that Mayflower loses today will be unable to refer customers to Mayflower in the future. See Duct-O-Wire Co. v. U.S. Crane, Inc., 31 F.3d 506, 509 (7th Cir.1994) (loss of present and future sales and customers constitutes irreparable harm); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Salvano, 999 F.2d 211, 215 (7th Cir.1993) (evidence of possible loss of customers if injunction is not issued sufficiently supports district court’s finding of irreparable harm and the inadequacy of the movant’s legal remedy); see also Gateway Eastern Railway Co. v. Terminal Railroad Assoc. of St. Louis, 35 F.3d 1134, 1140 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Thus, because such losses are difficult to Options: A. holding that the loss of money from a bank account does not constitute irreparable harm because that loss can be compensat ed by money damages B. holding that loss of customers and resulting injury to goodwill can constitute irreparable harm that is not compensable by an award of money damages C. holding that the potential loss of valuable business may constitute irreparable harm D. holding that monetary damages do not generally constitute irreparable harm E. holding that evidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill supports a finding of irreparable harm

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that loss of customers and resulting injury to goodwill can constitute irreparable harm that is not compensable by an award of money damages
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 Aggregate Commitments are increased in accordance with this Section, the Agent and the Borrowers shall determine the effective date (the “ Increase Effective Date ”) and the final allocation of such increase. The Agent shall promptly notify the Borrowers and the Lenders of the final allocation of such increase and the Increase Effective Date.

assistant: Effective Dates
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: You hereby represent and warrant that you are unaware of (1) any claims that have been threatened or asserted against the Company that are not already known to in-house legal counsel or (2) any fraud or suspected fraud involving the Company, management or other employees.

assistant: Representations
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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 368 U.S. 346 82 S.Ct. 282 7 L.Ed.2d 332 Samuel BAILEY et al.,v.Joe T. PATTERSON et al. No. ____. Decided Dec. 18, 1961. Constance Baker Motley, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and R. Jess Brown, for movants. Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen. of Mississippi, Charles Clark and Peter M. Stockett, Special Asst. Attys. Gen., and Dugas Shands and Edward L. Cates, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents Patterson and others. Thomas H. Watkins, for respondents City of Jackson and others. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Harold H. Greene and Howard A. Glickstein, for the United States, as amicus curiae. PER CURIAM. 1 This is a motion for an injunction to stay the prosecution of a number of criminal cases in the courts of Mississippi pending an appeal to this Court from the judgment of a three-judge Federal District Court. 199 F.Supp. 595. A federal injunction to stay state criminal proceedings is an extraordinary remedy. Cf. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714. In addition to the considerations normally attending an application for such relief, a serious question of standing is presented on this motion, in that it appears that the movants themselves are not being prosecuted in the Mississippi courts. On the record before us the motion for a stay injunction pending appeal is denied. 2 Motion denied. 3 Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER concur in the denial of a stay solely on the ground that the three movants are the themselves being prosecuted or threatened with prosecutions in Mississippi and they therefore reach no other questions.

assistant: 9