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: Any controversy or claim arising out of or in relation to this Agreement or the validity, construction or performance of this Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be resolved by private arbitration before a single arbitrator pursuant to the procedures set forth herein. In selecting a single arbitrator, in the event the parties are unable to reach a mutual decision on the arbitrator within a commercially reasonable time, the Employee and the Company, through their attorneys, shall submit three names to the Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer of the Company, who in turn, shall place the names on separate sheets of paper of equal dimension, fold and place in a container for selection. The parties may either, within a commercially reasonable period of time, (a) meet in person to select a name out of the container, (b) agree to do the selection through a video feed of the process, or (c) have the Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer turn over the container to an independent third-party at his choosing, who in turn would commence the drawing and then provide the parties with the name of the arbitrator chosen. The parties agree to waive any and all claims or defenses related to the selection of the arbitrator.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that she would be able to satisfy her monthly mortgage payments on the Armonk House without the Monthly Payments under the Modification Agreement. Indeed, when the Monthly Payments were not paid by the Debtor, Young needed to liquidate certain assets to satisfy such mortgage payments. In turn, the Debtor has offered no credible evidence that his assumption of the $390,000.00 debt in the form of $4,849.16 Monthly Payments under the Modification Agreement was intended to be anything other than housing support, especially in light of the foregoing. Accordingly, based upon the preponderance of the evidence, the Court finds that the Monthly Payments are in the nature of housing support and, therefore, nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(5). See generally Bonheur, 148 B.R. at 385 (<HOLDING>). With respect to whether legal fees incurred Options: A. holding that in an agreement where the father agreed to pay reasonable expenses to the extent that such expenses are not provided by any scholarship grant or other assistance for his sons education those expenses did not include loan repayment because it was not one of the forms of enumerated assistance B. holding that a promise to pay postmajority educational expenses was nondischargeable support even though the relevant states law does not require such support past the age of majority C. holding that equitable distribution payments to an exwife who could not have met her expenses without such assistance was in the nature of support and thus was nondischargeable debt D. holding that an agreement to pay sons college education expenses was nondischargeable support even though arkansas law does not require payment of such expenses E. holding that payments in the nature of support need not be made directly to the spouse or dependent to be nondischargeable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that equitable distribution payments to an exwife who could not have met her expenses without such assistance was in the nature of support and thus was nondischargeable debt
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: be adequately represented if the group is excluded from the jury selection process. See, e.g., United States v. Raszkiewicz, 169 F.3d 459, 463 (7th Cir.1999); United States v. Fletcher, 965 F.2d 781, 782 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Canfield, 879 F.2d 446, 447 (8th Cir.1989); Ford v. Seabold, 841 F.2d 677, 681-82 (6th Cir.1988); Barber v. Ponte, 772 F.2d 982, 986-87 (1st Cir.1985); Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212 (11th Cir.1983). Groups found not to have common interests such that they are considered a “distinct group” include younger people, college students, and persons over 70. See Ford, 841 F.2d at 682 (younger persons); Fletcher, 965 F.2d at 782 (college students); Silagy v. Peters, 905 F.2d 986 (7th Cir.1990) (persons over 70). Compare Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 99 S.Ct. 664 (<HOLDING>); Shinault, 147 F.3d at 1272 (recognizing Options: A. recognizing exception B. recognizing women as a distinct group C. recognizing rule D. recognizing this as the general rule E. recognizing rule as covering attorneys

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing women as a distinct group
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: Not earlier than the Retirement Date, and not later than 21 days after the Retirement Date, Executive (or Executive’s estate, as applicable) shall execute and deliver to the Company the general release (the “Release”) in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Executive (or Executive’s estate, as applicable) shall have a period of seven days after executing the Release to revoke the Release by written notice of revocation given to the Company. Anything else contained herein to the contrary notwithstanding, if Executive (or Executive’s estate, as applicable), either fails to execute and deliver the Release, or revokes in writing the Release, within the time periods described above, the payment shall be immediately forfeited and Executive (or Executive’s estate, as applicable) shall have no rights under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 7 (1999) (“a breach of the duty to assist ... cannot form the basis of a CUE claim”); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377, 383-84 (1994); see also Hayre, 188 F.3d at 1330-32 (ratifying Cajfrey, supra). Second, the Court’s authority to consider claims of CUE in Board decisions is premised upon, inter alia, 38 U.S.C. § 7111, which took effect on November 21, 1997. See Pub.L. No. 105-111, 111 Stat. 2271 (1997) (the provisions of Pub.L. 105-111 “apply to any determination made before, on, or after the date of the enactment.”). Section 7111 requires that such arguments must be raised to the Board in the first instance and decided by the Board on the merits; they may not be raised in the first instance on appeal to the Court. See 38 U.S.C. § 7111(e); Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d 776 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The record shows that the appellant made no Options: A. holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear a cue claim raised for the first time on appeal B. holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal C. holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court D. holding that the court has discretion to hear or to remand legal arguments raised for the first time on appeal E. holding in pertinent part that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear a cue claim raised for the first time on appeal
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: By and immediately upon the issuance of a Letter of Credit (or an amendment to a Letter of Credit increasing the amount thereof) and without any further action on the part of the Issuing Bank that is the issuer thereof or the Lenders, such Issuing Bank hereby grants to each Revolving Lender, and each Revolving Lender hereby acquires from such Issuing Bank, a participation in such Letter of Credit equal to such Revolving Lender’s Applicable Percentage of the aggregate amount available to be drawn under such Letter of Credit. In consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing, each Revolving Lender hereby absolutely, irrevocably, and unconditionally agrees to pay to the Administrative Agent, for the account of such Issuing Bank, such Revolving Lender’s Applicable Percentage of each LC Disbursement made by such Issuing Bank and not reimbursed by the Borrower on the date due as provided in paragraph (f) of this Section, or of any reimbursement payment required to be refunded to the Borrower for any reason. Each Revolving Lender acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to acquire participations pursuant to this paragraph in respect of Letters of Credit is absolute, irrevocable, and unconditional and shall not be affected by any circumstance whatsoever, including any amendment or extension of any Letter of Credit or the occurrence and continuance of a Default or any reduction or termination of the Revolving Commitments, and that each such payment shall be made without any offset, abatement, withholding or reduction whatsoever.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be terminated as to any Fund at any time, without payment of any penalty, by the board or by vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of such Fund, upon 60 days’ written notice, delivered or mailed by registered mail, postage prepaid, to Artisan Partners. This Agreement may be terminated as to any Fund by Artisan Partners at any time, without payment of any penalty, upon 60 days’ written notice, delivered or mailed by registered mail, postage prepaid, to Artisan Funds. This Agreement shall terminate automatically, without payment of any penalty, in the event of its assignment, provided that no delegation of responsibilities by Artisan Partners pursuant to Section 1(c) of this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute an assignment. The termination of this Agreement with respect to any one Fund shall not be deemed to terminate this Agreement with respect to any other Fund.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a class be treated the same, unless the creditor who is being treated less favorably agrees to less favorable treatment.”). Thus, the Amended Plan satisfies 11 U.S.C. §§ 1122 and 1123(a). Further, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b), the Amended Plan properly preserves the Debtor’s ability to prosecute the Adversary Proceeding. See In re Tex. Gen. Petroleum Corp., 52 F.3d 1330, 1335 n. 4 (5th Cir.1995) (explaining that a debt- or may retain post-confirmation causes of action if the plan so provides). However, to the extent that the Amended Plan makes a blanket reservation of causes of action that may be pursued by the Debtor, these generic causes of action may not be preserved. See Dynasty Oil & Gas, LLC v. Citizens Bank (In re United Operating, LLC), 540 F.3d 351, 355-56 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in this particular respect, the Amended Options: A. holding that a debtor cannot appeal a confirmation order on the basis that it unfairly discriminates against a class of claims B. holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence C. holding that controlling shareholder of postconfirmation debtor could not pursue unlisted preconfirmation claim on behalf of creditors D. holding that a debtor must make a specific and unequivocal reservation of claims that would effectively put its creditors on notice of any claim it wishes to pursue after confirmation E. holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a debtor must make a specific and unequivocal reservation of claims that would effectively put its creditors on notice of any claim it wishes to pursue after confirmation
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 Guaranty is a continuing guaranty of all Obligations now or hereafter existing and shall remain in full force and effect until all Obligations and any other amounts payable under the Loan Documents are indefeasibly paid in full in cash and the Revolving Commitment is terminated. If a Guarantor elects to revoke this Guaranty, such revocation shall not become effective until 10 Business Days after Lender receives written notice from such Guarantor revoking this Guaranty. If this Guaranty is revoked by any Guarantor, said revocation shall have no effect on the continuing liability of such Guarantor to guarantee unconditionally the prompt payment of all Obligations which are contracted or incurred prior to the fifth Business Day after receipt of the revocation notice, including any such prior Obligations which are subsequently renewed, modified or extended after such revocation becomes effective, as well as all extensions of credit made after revocation pursuant to any commitments made prior to such revocation. Revocation of this Guaranty by any Guarantor shall not relieve any other Guarantor of any liability hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Guaranty shall continue in full force and effect or be revived, as the case may be, if any payment by or on behalf of the Borrower or any Guarantor is made, or Lender exercises its right of setoff, in respect of the Obligations and such payment or the proceeds of such setoff or any part thereof is subsequently invalidated, declared to be fraudulent or preferential, set aside or required (including pursuant to any settlement entered into by the Lender in its discretion) to be repaid to a trustee, receiver or any other party, in connection with any proceeding under any applicable law or otherwise, all as if such payment had not been made or such setoff had not occurred and whether or not Lender is in possession of or has released this Guaranty and regardless of any prior revocation, rescission, termination or reduction. The obligations of each Guarantor under this Section shall survive termination of this Guaranty.

assistant: Terminations
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 Borrowers hereby agree to protect, indemnify, pay and save harmless each Issuing Lender and any of its Affiliates that has issued a Letter of Credit from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, damages, taxes, penalties, interest, judgments, losses, costs, charges and expenses (including reasonable fees, expenses and disbursements of counsel) which such Issuing Lender or any of its Affiliates may incur or be subject to as a consequence, direct or indirect, of the issuance of any Letter of Credit, other than as a result of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of such Issuing Lender as determined by a final non-appealable judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

assistant: Indemnity
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 saddle the client with the mistakes of its attorney. The Court today properly rejects that rationale.” Id. at 405-06, 113 S.Ct. 1489. There is a small measure of inconsistency between the D.C. Circuit’s use of equitable principles in not holding a purely innocent and misled client liable for the neglect of counsel and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Link and Pioneer. But this court need not address this inconsistency any further. Even under the slightly more relaxed standard that the D.C. Circuit used in two deei-sions, which allow a client to avoid the consequences of his counsel’s malpractice, Moving Plaintiffs still fail to show circumstances that will allow this court to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See L.P. Steuart, Inc. v. Matthews, 329 F.2d 234 (D.C.Cir.1964) (<HOLDING>), and Jackson v. Washington Monthly Co., et Options: A. holding trial court erred when it sanctioned client where the evidence showed that the attorney filed frivolous pleadings on behalf of the client but the client did nothing more than rely on her attorneys advice B. holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case C. holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client D. holding that an attorney who breaches a fiduciary duty to a client forfeits his right to compensation without any requirement that the client prove actual harm E. holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client

assistant: The best answer is B. holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case
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: medical records related to the injuries alleged in the petition, which are physical, not psychiatric. [Mr. Patton’s] psychiatric records held by Dr. Rao are not relevant to those injuries and are not discoverable.” A reviewing court affirms the decision of the trial court on any basis that is correct, even if the reviewing court might have ruled on a different basis. Kubley v. Brooks, 141 S.W.3d 21, 27 n. 5 (Mo. banc 2004); Fix v. Fix, 847 S.W.2d 762, 766 (Mo. banc 1993); Edgar v. Fitzpatrick, 377 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Mo. banc 1964). I believe, as is admitted in the majority opinion, that the discovery request was too broad. An overly broad request alone would have been a valid basis for denying this writ of mandamus. See State ex rel. Jones v. Syler, 936 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Mo. banc 1997) (<HOLDING>). BNSF did not request medical records, reports Options: A. holding a sentence is not limited to period of incarceration B. holding a writ was appropriate when the authorization was not limited as to time and not limited to specific healthcare providers C. recognizing only specific limited forms of pleadings D. holding that injury to business or property was not limited to commercial interests E. holding that a healthcare power of attorney conferred by a resident to his wife explicitly limited the powers of the agent to those set out in writing in the document

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a writ was appropriate when the authorization was not limited as to time and not limited to specific healthcare providers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you obtain no copyright or other interest in any sr samples obtained by you on or through the service , including , but not limited to , those sr samples that may be used by you in any ugv .

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: Guide to a New Arrival, 55 Ala. Law. 84, 88 (1994). Today, “most courts [ ] recognize the distinction between causing [a birth defect] and causing the parents to lose the option to terminate the pregnancy, [and] the latter causation standard is widely accepted in jurisdictions recognizing wrongful birth actions.” Gold, supra, at 1013 (citing Robak, supra, 658 F.2d at 477; Keel, supra, 624 So.2d at 1027). The appropriate proximate cause question, therefore, is not whether the doctor’s negligence caused the fetal defect; the congenital harm suffered by the child is expressly not compensable. Rather, the determination to be made is whether the doctors’ inadequate disclosure deprived the parents of their deeply personal right to decide for themselves whether to 2d 232, 237 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Smith, supra, 513 A.2d at 347 (holding that Options: A. holding woman who alleged she was terminated for having an abortion stated a prima facie case for discrimination B. holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence C. holding that plaintiff satisfies causation by showing that in absence of defendants negligence she would have obtained abortion D. holding that plaintiff must establish that had she learned of impairment during her pregnancy she would have terminated pregnancy E. holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that plaintiff satisfies causation by showing that in absence of defendants negligence she would have obtained abortion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS AGREEMENT AND THE OTHER CREDIT DOCUMENTS AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES HEREUNDER AND THEREUNDER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN ANY MORTGAGE, BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the record.” PL Mot. at 18. Moreover, it is well established that military decisions are “subject to judicial review and can be set aside if they are arbitrary, capricious or not based on substantial evidence.” PI. Mot. at 18 (citing Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 303, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983)). Since the Complaint alleges the BOI’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not based on substantial evidence, and that the Navy failed to follow “measured tests and standards,” this case is justiciable. PL Mot. at 18. Plaintiff adds that although “decisions which affect the conduct of military operations, strategy or tactics” are not justiciable, “personnel decisions” are reviewable by the courts. Pl. Mot. at 20-21 (citing Adair v. England, 183 F.Supp.2d 31, 50 (D.D.C.2002) (<HOLDING>)). The Government replies that the suggestion Options: A. holding that chilling effect claim must still be rooted in specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm to convey standing B. holding that a trial courts statutory interpretation is given no deference on review C. holding that courts have inherent power to hire and require salaries be paid to secretaries clerks probation officers and assistants D. holding that the militarys policies to hire retain and promote chaplains relate to qualityoflife issues for military personnel and have no specific operational strategic or tactical objective and therefore require less deference E. holding that plaintiffs who alleged a subjective chill of their first amendment rights failed to establish specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the militarys policies to hire retain and promote chaplains relate to qualityoflife issues for military personnel and have no specific operational strategic or tactical objective and therefore require less deference
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: by using the service , you acknowledge , accept and agree with all provisions of the privacy policy , including , without limitation , the use and treatment of the text , images , and other data you choose to input , upload , or store in evernote ( collectively , `` content '' ) and your personal information in accordance with such privacy policy .

assistant: Contract by using
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 Employee shall have no vested right in the Performance-Based Cash Award unless the Committee certifies that the Bonus Target, as applicable, has been achieved. Such achievement, as evidenced by such certification by the Committee, shall be construed by all parties as a condition related to the purpose of the compensation for purposes of Section 409A of the Code. Provided that such certification is made, and that the Employee is employed by the Company as of the Fiscal Year Date, vesting shall occur as of the day following the Fiscal Year Date. If, prior to the Fiscal Year Date, the Employee voluntarily leaves employment with the Company other than for Good Reason or is terminated by the Company for Cause, the Employee shall forfeit the entirety of the Performance-Based Cash Award otherwise payable hereunder.

assistant: Forfeitures
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 on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To survive summary judgment, the non-mov-ant must provide evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find in his favor. Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1241 (D.C.Cir.1987). In considering a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In a FOIA case, a plaintiff must first exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 61-2 (D.C.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Payment of search and duplication fees is Options: A. holding exhaustion of administrative remedies not required prior to bringing statutory claim under erisa B. holding that an exhaustion of appellate remedies is required to make a trial courts ruling the law of the case C. holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a mandatory prerequisite to a lawsuit under foia D. holding that proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary under section 1997ea E. holding that courts have consistently required exhaustion of administrative remedies under foia

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that courts have consistently required exhaustion of administrative remedies under foia
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: liability, and it lacked any reasonable probability of generating a profit. We review de novo the tax court’s “general characterization of a transaction for tax purposes.” Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561, 581 n. 16, 98 S.Ct. 1291, 55 L.Ed.2d 550 (1978). The facts underlying that characterization, however, are subject to clear error review. Id. i. Law to Apply In the Tenth Circuit, the economic substance doctrine dictates whether the Commissioner may rightfully disregard a transaction as lacking economic substance. Sala v. United States, 613 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir.2010); Keeler v. Comm’r, 243 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir.2001); Jackson v. Comm’r, 966 F.2d 598 (10th Cir.1992); James v. Comm’r, 899 F.2d 905 (10th Cir.1990); see also Casebeer v. Comm’r, 909 F.2d 1360, 1365 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). The doctrinal framework is fairly Options: A. holding that courts must disregard transactions that are designed to comply with the literal terms of the tax code but are unlikely to produce nontax economic benefits B. holding that jones act claimant against the government must comply with the terms of 2675 C. holding that since the constitutional and statutory extradition provisions are not designed to protect fugitives but rather are designed to facilitate the administration of justice between states the failure to comply with established procedures does not deprive the fugitive of any protected right and therefore provides no basis for a 1983 claim D. holding that a binding settlement on a tax liability must follow the requirements of the tax code which include the execution of a closing agreement E. holding that when a statutes terms are clear and unambiguous on their face there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that courts must disregard transactions that are designed to comply with the literal terms of the tax code but are unlikely to produce nontax economic benefits
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: be considered thus indicate that the court limited its decision to the § 3553(a) factors enumerated in § 3583(e). LeBoeuf has not shown any error under the first prong of the plain error test. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that the district court improperly considered the punishment factor of § 3553(a)(2)(A), LeBoeuf cannot meet the second prong of plain error review because the error was not clear or obvious. At the time of the district court proceedings, our own circuit law as to whether the court could consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) when imposing a revocation sentence was unsettled, see, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 369 Fed.Appx. 608, 608 (5th Cir.2010) (declining to decide the issue), and there was a split among our sister circuits. Compare, e.g., Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182 (<HOLDING>) with United States v. Lewis, 498 F.3d 393, Options: A. holding that reasonableness review applies to a sentence imposed upon a revocation of supervised release B. holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence C. holding that reliance on 3553a2a for a revocation sentence is improper D. holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense E. holding that the maximum revocation sentence is the top of the guidelines range

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that reliance on 3553a2a for a revocation sentence is improper
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: enjoyment of a dwelling may support a claim under section 3617 of the Act, see Halprin v. Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Ass’n, 388 F.3d 327, 330 (7th Cir.2004) (citing 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(2)), the interference must constitute more than a simple landlord-tenant dispute; it must constitute a “pattern of harassment, invidiously motivated.” Id. Farrar’s only allegation to support her claim is that she is African-American while the owner of her building is “non-Black” and the representative of her building’s management company is white. The mere fact that Farrar has a dispute over rent or services with the “non-Black” owner and manager of her building does not establish a claim under the Fair Housing Act. Id.; see also Maki v. Laakko, 88 F.3d 361, 364-65 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). As this appeal is frivolous, the decision of Options: A. holding that police officers warrantless search of rented home with consent of landlord but not tenant violated tenants fourth amendment rights B. holding that increase in rent combined with friction between tenant and landlord does not establish claim under fair housing act C. holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property D. holding over and paying the increased rent showed an intent to exercise the option and acceptance by landlord waived notice E. holding that where the landlord was aware the tenant had moved out a tenant who attached a lock to the door and accidentally retained the keys to the lock was not a holdover tenant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that increase in rent combined with friction between tenant and landlord does not establish claim under fair housing act
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: (a) The closing of the Purchase (the “ Closing ”) shall take place at the offices of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 3330 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304, on the second Business Day following the satisfaction (or, to the extent permitted by Law, the waiver by the party entitled to the benefit thereof) of the conditions set forth in Article VI , other than those conditions that by their nature are to be satisfied as of the Closing (but subject to the satisfaction or waiver of such conditions at the Closing), or at such other place, time and date as shall be agreed between the Company and the Investor. The date on which the Closing occurs is referred to in this Agreement as the “ Closing Date ”. The Closing shall be deemed to occur and be effective as of 12:01 a.m., New York City time, on the Closing Date.

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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 480 U.S. 699 107 S.Ct. 1596 94 L.Ed.2d 679 James A. LYNAUGH, Interim Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Petitioner,v.Gregory Allen PETTY No. 85-1656 Supreme Court of the United States March 25, 1987 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT [March 25, 1987] PER CURIAM. 1 The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 393 U.S. 83 89 S.Ct. 60 21 L.Ed.2d 215 Velma L. MENGELKOCH et al.v.INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION et al. No. 375. Oct. 28, 1968. Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1968. See 393 U.S. 993, 89 S.Ct. 443. Marguerite Rawalt, for appellants. Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, and Edward M. Belasco, Jay L. Linderman and William L. Zessar, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 A three-judge federal court, convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281, determined that 'there is no jurisdiction for a three-judge court' and entered an order dissolving itself. 284 F.Supp. 950, 956. The single district judge in whose court the case was originally filed considered further and dismissed the case without prejudice under the doctrine of abstention, stating in his memorandum opinion that '(t)he order dissolving the three-judge court is incorporated in this memorandum by reference.' 284 F.Supp. 956, 957. Appellants appeal from both judgments. In these circumstances, we have no jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from the decision of the single judge; such jurisdiction is possessed only by the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Moreover, we have held that when, as here, a three-judge court dissolves itself for want of jurisdiction, an appeal lies to the appropriate Court of Appeals and not to this Court. Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 391 U.S. 352, 88 S.Ct. 1502, 20 L.Ed.2d 636.* 2 Although the appellants have lodged in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a protective appeal from the decision of the single judge, it does not appear from the record that such an appeal has been filed with respect to the three-judge order. Therefore, we vacate the order of the three-judge court and remand the case to the District Court so that a timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals. See Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, supra; Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 382 U.S. 281, 282, 86 S.Ct. 423, 15 L.Ed.2d 324. The appeal from the decision of the single judge is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 3 It is so ordered. 4 Order of three-judge court vacated and case remanded; appeal from order of single judge dismissed. * We think it makes no difference in principle that in Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca the single judge actually adopted the opinion of the three-judge court as his own.

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 agreements in this Section 10.05 shall survive the resignation or removal of either Agent, the replacement of any Lender, the termination of the Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all the other Obligations and the termination of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all costs and expenses, including, without limitation, fees and disbursements of counsel, financial advisors and accountants incurred in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby shall be paid by the party incurring such costs and expenses, whether or not the Closing shall have occurred.

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: No material report, material certificate or other material information furnished in writing (other than projections, other forward looking information and information of a general economic or general industry nature) by or on behalf of any Credit Party or any Subsidiary thereof to the Administrative Agent or any Lender in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the negotiation of this Agreement or delivered hereunder (as modified or supplemented by other information so furnished) concerning the Borrower, its Subsidiaries and the transaction contemplated hereby, taken as a whole, contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading as of the date on which such report, certificate or information was furnished; provided that, with respect to projected financial information, pro forma financial information, estimated financial information and other projected or estimated information, such information was prepared in good faith based upon assumptions believed to be reasonable at the time (it being recognized by the Lenders that projections are not to be viewed as facts and that the actual results during the period or periods covered by such projections may vary from such projections and such variation may be material).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: omitted). Even if we were to do so, it would not change the outcome, since we see no error in the district court’s ruling regardless of whether the robbery and drug conspiracy were related. 3 . This course of action is permissible, though "we have repeatedly mentioned 'our strong preference for James proceedings.' ” United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267, 1273 (10th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Owens, 70 F.3d 1118, 1123 (10th Cir.1995)). 4 . The conspiracy supporting the introduction of the out-of-court statement need not be the same as the conspiracy charged in the indictment, so long as the statement was in furtherance of the uncharged conspiracy. United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 82 (2d. Cir.1999); see also United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 675 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). 5 .Burnett testified at one point that he had Options: A. holding that a failure to instruct the jury on additional uncharged conspiracies is not reversible error so long as the jury is instructed that the government has the burden to prove the charged conspiracy B. holding that although it is proper to instruct the jury that it may consider whether the factual predicates necessary to establish the prima facie case have been shown it is error to instruct the jury on the mcdonnell douglas burden shifting scheme C. holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error D. holding failure to instruct jury on requirement of corroboration of informants testimony is error E. holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a failure to instruct the jury on additional uncharged conspiracies is not reversible error so long as the jury is instructed that the government has the burden to prove the charged conspiracy
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: v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478, 485, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2185, 2189, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). The Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), delineated the following elements as necessary for a state to acquire jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant: [I]n order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he [must] have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe at 316, 66 S.Ct. at 158. Recently, in Syl. Pt. 1, Hill by Hill v. Showa Denko, K.K., 188 W.Va. 654, 425 S.E.2d 609 (1992) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2338, 124 L.Ed.2d 249 (1993) (<HOLDING>), this Court repeated our standard for Options: A. holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction B. holding that although plaintiffs claims were masked in various legal theories they were premised on a single claim of product liability and therefore fell under north carolinas product liability statute C. holding that a plaintiff may not rely on an unadorned stream of commerce theory to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction over defendants D. holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury E. holding that personal jurisdiction can be premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that personal jurisdiction can be premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce
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: Tenant shall clean and maintain in good order, condition, and repair and replace when necessary the Premises and every part thereof, through regular inspections and servicing, including, but not limited to: (i) all plumbing and sewage facilities (including all sinks, toilets, faucets and drains), and all ducts, pipes, vents or other parts of the HVAC or plumbing system; (ii) all fixtures, interior walls, floors, carpets and ceilings; (iii) all windows, doors, entrances, plate glass, showcases and skylights (including cleaning both interior and exterior surfaces); (iv) all electrical facilities and all equipment (including all lighting fixtures, lamps, bulbs, tubes, fans, vents, exhaust equipment and systems); and (v) any automatic fire extinguisher equipment in the Premises.

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: Each of the parties hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally submits, for itself and its property, to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the State of New York sitting in New York County and of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, and any appellate court from any thereof, in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or for recognition or enforcement of any judgment, and each of the parties hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agrees that all claims in respect of any such action or proceeding may be heard and determined in such New York State or, to the extent permitted by law, in such Federal court. Each of the parties hereto agrees that a final judgment in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect any right that any Investor may otherwise have to bring any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement against the Company and its subsidiaries or their respective properties in the courts of any jurisdiction or any right that the Company may otherwise have to bring any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement against any Investor or its properties in the courts of any jurisdiction. Each party hereto irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection that it may now or hereafter have to the laying of venue of any such proceeding brought in such a court referred to in the first sentence of this Section 11(k) and any claim that any such proceeding brought in such a court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.

assistant: Submission To Jurisdiction