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: limited to ones outside the policy coverage.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). If the failure to install the homes correctly amounted only to negligence, the parks may not have known that the homes were being installed incorrectly. In that event, there simply would be no basis for concluding that the parks actually expected that the installations would damage the homes; thus, the damage could possibly have been caused by an occurrence. The unexpected nature of the liability is the reason that this sort of claim, in which a company has accidentally caused damage to other property by negligently performing its work, is exactly the sort that commercial general liability (CGL) policies are designed to cover. See, e.g., Haynes v. Am. Cas. Co., 228 Md. 394, 179 A.2d 900, 903-04 (1962) (<HOLDING>). But even assuming for a moment that all of Options: A. holding that issues not argued specifically and distinctly in a partys opening brief are waived internal quotation marks and citations omitted B. holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work C. holding that when contrac tor hired to do excavation work cut down trees that turned out to be on a third partys property damage was caused by accident internal quotation marks omitted D. holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted E. recognizing that party is not permitted to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could just as well have raised in the first appeal internal quotation marks and alterations omitted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when contrac tor hired to do excavation work cut down trees that turned out to be on a third partys property damage was caused by accident internal quotation marks omitted
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 amended only by means of a written amendment signed by the Partnership and the Required Holders. Any amendment, supplement or modification of or to any provision of this Agreement, any waiver of any provision of this Agreement, and any consent to any departure by the Partnership or any Purchaser from the terms of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which such amendment, supplement, modification, waiver or consent has been made or given.

assistant: Amendments
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: rezoning existed at the time of the taking than would the fact that the property was not subsequently rezoned. 9 The plurality is impressive in the breadth of the analogies that it brings to bear in its analysis, ranging from probability to the stock market to psychology. If, as I understand it to be the plurality’s point, the future is unpredictable, I am persuaded. If, on the other hand, it is the plurality’s point that when the future becomes the present it is of no relevance in assessing what the prospects yesterday were of that future, I respectfully disagree. 10 Other states have held that evidence of a posttaking rezoning is admissible to help the jury determine the “just compensation” due for the taking. Roach v Newton Redevelopment Auth, 381 Mass 135, 137; 407 NE2d 1251 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Bembinster v Wisconsin, 57 Wis 2d 277, Options: A. holding that the type of evidence which has been admitted as material as tending to prove a reasonable probability of change includes the actual amendment of the ordinance subsequent to the taking B. holding that ajctual amendment of the zoning law subsequent to the taking may be weighty evidence of such a prospect C. holding that where a zoning board had no authority under state law to take certain actions with respect to a protected property interest a trier of fact could conclude that there was no rational basis for the towns zoning boards actions and that as a result the zoning board violated appellants rights to substantive due process D. holding that the llupa does not provide for judicial review of requests to change zoning or comprehensive zoning plans E. holding that if subsequent to the taking and before the trial the ordinance was actually amended to permit the previously forbidden use then that of itself was weighty evidence of the existence at the time of the taking of the fact that there was a reasonable probability of an imminent change

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that ajctual amendment of the zoning law subsequent to the taking may be weighty evidence of such a prospect
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: United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188, 44 S.Ct. 511, 512, 68 L.Ed. 968 (1924)). The concept of deprivation means obtaining property with an intent not to pay as opposed to mere failure to pay. The question then becomes whether Porcelli intended to deprive New York of its property. Intangible interests have long been recognized and protected as property. E.g., Ruckelskaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 104 S.Ct. 2862, 81 L.Ed.2d 815 (1984) (trade secrets); United States v. General Motors Corp,, 323 U.S. 373, 65 S.Ct. 357, 89 L.Ed. 311 (1945) (long term lease). Any suggestion that McNally might exclude all intangible interest from the scope of section 1341 (or its wire fraud companion, section 1343) was dispelled by Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 108 S.Ct. 316, 98 L.Ed.2d 275 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Thus the fact that New York’s interest in Options: A. holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege B. holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information C. holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential D. recognizing medical records contain the same protected confidential information as a physicians direct testimony about the communications E. holding that confidential business information is property protected by the mail and wire fraud statutes

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that confidential business information is property protected by the mail and wire fraud statutes
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 and the sale and purchase of the Shares and the Warrants abandoned at any time prior to the Closing by either the Company or any Purchaser (with respect to itself only) upon written notice to the other, if the Closing has not been consummated on or prior to 5:00 P.M., New York City time, on the Outside Date; provided, however , that the right to terminate this Agreement under this Section 6.18 shall not be available to any Person whose failure to comply with its obligations under this Agreement has been the cause of or resulted in the failure of the Closing to occur on or before such time. Nothing in this Section 6.18 shall be deemed to release any party from any liability for any breach by such party of the terms and provisions of this Agreement or the other Transaction Documents or to impair the right of any party to compel specific performance by any other party of its obligations under this Agreement or the other Transaction Documents. In the event of a termination pursuant to this Section 6.18 , the Company shall promptly notify all non-terminating Purchasers. Upon a termination in accordance with this Section 6.18 , the Company and the terminating Purchaser(s) shall not have any further obligation or liability (including arising from such termination) to the other, and no Purchaser will have any liability to any other Purchaser under the Transaction Documents as a result therefrom.

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: 10: Pimental’s Chapter 93A claim hinges upon her breach of contract and negligence claims; she alleges that Wachovia’s “unfair or deceptive” practices were its “premature and erroneous disbursal of construction loan funds ....” Compl. ¶ 33. Wachovia’s duties to Pimental are defined by the terms of the loan contract, which expressly commit the inspection of the property and the decision to disburse funds to the discretion of Wachovia without imposing a duty upon it to protect Pimental’s interests. Since Pimental has failed to allege sustainable breach of contract or negligence claims, and the Chapter 93A claim is based upon the previous two claims, there is no basis for finding Wachovia liable under Chapter 93A. See Egan v. Athol Mem. Hosp., 971 F.Supp. 37, 47 (D.Mass.1997) (Gorton, J.) (<HOLDING>). ■ A practice may be a violation of Options: A. holding that summary judgment on chapter 93a claim is appropriate when summary judgment is granted on fraud claim and chapter 93a claim is solely based on the underlying claim for common law fraud B. holding that inaccuracies did not give rise to a violation of chapter 93a where there was no deliberate misrepresentation of underlying facts and no indication that the insurance company did not believe its conclusions to be true at the time C. holding that an abutter could not bring a 93a claim because there was no business relationship with the defendant D. holding that the city of springfield was potentially liable under chapter 93a E. holding that where there was no evidence of the claimed underlying violation and where there were no unique arguments related to the chapter 93a claim defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs chapter 93a claim

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where there was no evidence of the claimed underlying violation and where there were no unique arguments related to the chapter 93a claim defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs chapter 93a claim
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 Revolving Facility is increased in accordance with this Section, the Administrative Agent and the Borrowers shall determine the effective date (the “Revolving Increase Effective Date”) and the final allocation of such increase. The Administrative Agent shall promptly notify the Borrowers and the Lenders and the New Lenders of the final allocation of such increase and the Revolving 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: conviction and resentencing for a lesser-included offense, where the jury had not been instructed on that lesser offense at trial. The Court of Appeals below answered in the affirmative and remanded for resentencing on the lesser-included offense of attempt to commit the eight violations of the WQA. Villa, 2003-NMCA-142, ¶ 45, 134 N.M. 679, 82 P.3d 46. The Court of Appeals held that an appellate court may remand for resentencing for a lesser offense on which the jury was not instructed, provided the following conditions are met: (1) there is a failure of proof of one element of the greater offense; (2) the evidence is sufficient to sustain all the elements of the lesser offense; (3) the lesser offense is included in the greater; and (4) no undue prejudice to the de 2d 862, 869 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Significantly, the trial courts in both Options: A. holding the interests of justice would not be served by remanding for new trial on the offense of seconddegree murder B. holding that first and seconddegree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of seconddegree felony murder C. holding that although premeditation is outside the heartland of seconddegree murder guideline upward departure from seconddegree murder guideline based on premeditation was improper because commission considered the defendants state of mind in assigning a higher base offense level to firstdegree murder than to seconddegree murder D. holding on rehearing that the interests of justice would be better served by remanding for new trial on the offenses of seconddegree murder and voluntary manslaughter E. holding jury instruction on lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter by act which required finding of intent to kill constituted fundamental error and required reversal of defendants conviction for seconddegree murder

assistant: The best answer is D. holding on rehearing that the interests of justice would be better served by remanding for new trial on the offenses of seconddegree murder and voluntary manslaughter
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 any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement or in any other Loan Document should be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein and therein shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby . The parties 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: this court reviews an argument not properly preserved for plain error). He contends that the acts between him, then eighteen years old, and a thirteen-year-old girl were not violent felonies ■because the girl consented and acts between two such teenagers do not pose a serious potential risk of physical injury. The Government argues that Orozco waived this argument by maintaining his guilty plea when given an opportunity to withdraw it after learning of his armed career criminal status and the resulting sentencing enhancements. We agree with the Government that Orozco waived his argument by maintaining his guilty plea with full knowledge that he was facing a sentence based on his classification as an armed career criminal. See United States v. Cook, 447 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d Options: A. holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error B. holding that a defendant waived the right to contest his sentence based on an enhancement when he pled guilty and explicitly and voluntarily exposted himself to a specific sentence C. holding that defendant was entitled to withdraw guilty plea upon habeas corpus proceedings where he pled guilty in exchange for an illegal sentence D. holding that the defendant waived the right to appeal his sentence including the terms and conditions of his supervised release when he agreed to a plea agreement that said he expressly waives his right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed on any ground emphasis added E. holding that heightened evidentiary standard of proof is not required where the sentencing enhancement is based entirely on the extent of the conspiracy to which the defendant pled guilty

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a defendant waived the right to contest his sentence based on an enhancement when he pled guilty and explicitly and voluntarily exposted himself to a specific sentence
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: Following the Committee’s determination and certification in accordance with subsection (a) above, the earned Performance-Based Cash Award amount shall be paid to the Participant or his legal representative, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Performance-Based Cash Award agreement, but in no event, except as provided in the next sentence, shall such amount be paid later than the later of: (i) March 15 of the year following the year in which the applicable Performance Period ends (or, if later, the year in which the Award is earned); or (ii) two and one-half months after the expiration of the fiscal year of the Company in which the applicable Performance Period ends. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee may place such conditions on the payment of all or any portion of any Performance-Based Cash Award as the Committee may determine and prior to the beginning of a Performance Period the Committee may (A) provide that the payment of all or any portion of any Performance-Based Cash Award shall be deferred and (B) permit a Participant to elect to defer receipt of all or a portion of any Performance-Based Cash Award. Any Performance-Based Cash Award deferred by a Participant in accordance with the terms and conditions established by the Committee shall not increase (between the date on which the Performance-Based Cash Award is credited to any deferred compensation program applicable to such Participant and the payment date) by an amount that would result in such deferral being deemed as an “increase in the amount of compensation” under Section 162(m). To the extent applicable, any deferral under this Section 9.2(d) shall be made in a manner intended to comply with or be exempt from the applicable requirements of Section 409A. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee may exercise negative discretion by providing in a Performance-Based Cash Award the discretion to pay an amount less than otherwise would be provided under the applicable level of attainment of the performance goals.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: counsel informed him that counsel had been relieved of his responsibility. Defendants further contend that even if the AG had known that former counsel was no longer Plaintiffs’ present counsel, it could not have served the motion for modification on anyone else since the addresses of the class representatives, Taylor and Yanich, cannot be found by the Arizona Department of Corrections. 2. DUE PROCESS A fundamental and elementary requirement of due process in any proceeding is notice and opportunity to be heard. In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), the Supreme Court established the standard for determining whether a party’s notice would meet due process scrutiny: An elementary and fundament d 1440, 1448-49 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). A judgment entered in a manner inconsistent Options: A. holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members B. recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order C. holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice D. holding that the debtor in possession was liable for civil contempt when he disobeyed the courts order to turn over the cash collateral and violated 11 usc 363 E. holding that oneday notice provided to creditor before entry of cash collateral order violated due process

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that oneday notice provided to creditor before entry of cash collateral order violated 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: Guarantor (i) is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction of its formation, (ii) is duly licensed, qualified, and in good standing in each jurisdiction where such licensing or qualification is necessary for the transaction of Guarantor’s business, except where failure to be so licensed or qualified would not be reasonably expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, (iii) has the power to own its properties and to transact the businesses in which it is now engaged.

assistant: Organizations
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: Borrowers represent and warrant to Administrative Agent and Lenders with respect to the Leases that except as set forth on Schedule 4.1 , (i) the rent roll delivered to Administrative Agent with respect to such Leases is true and correct; (ii) such Leases are in full force and effect; (iii) the Leases (including amendments) are in writing, and there are no oral agreements with respect thereto; (iv) the copies of the Leases delivered to Administrative Agent are true and complete; (v) neither the landlord nor, to Borrower’s Knowledge, any tenant is in default under any of the Leases; (vi) except as disclosed in estoppel certificates delivered by or on behalf of any Tenant, Borrowers have no knowledge of any notice of termination or default with respect to any Lease; (vii) Borrowers have not assigned or pledged any of the Leases, the rents or any interests therein except to Administrative Agent and Lenders; (viii) except as set forth on Schedule 4.1 , no Tenant or other party has an option to purchase all or any portion of any Project; (ix) except as set forth in the Leases, no Tenant has the right to terminate its Lease prior to expiration of the stated term of such Lease; and (x) except as set forth in any estoppel certificates delivered by or on behalf of any Tenant, no Tenant has prepaid more than one month’s rent in advance (except for bona fide security deposits).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to post bail, but this issue is neither timely raised nor relevant. The question presented is not whether it was lawful to detain Weiss before he was found incompetent, but rather whether some period of detention was lawful after that finding was made. The answer to this question requires a balancing of the individual’s interests in liberty against the government’s interests. Although individuals have rights to liberty, the government has legitimate interests in bringing accused persons to trial and protecting the public from arrested persons who present a demonstrable threat to the community. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 749-50, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1987). See also Born v. Thompson, 117 Wn. App. 57, 69 P.3d 343 (2003), review granted, 150 Wn.2d 1025 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Where a time period for treatment is not Options: A. holding that the legislatures intentions in adopting 14day restoration provisions include 1 restora tion for purposes of prosecution 2 protecting the public through its police powers and 3 providing the accused with access to treatment as an alternative to incarceration B. holding in an inverse condemnation case that the abutting landowners right of direct access was subservient to the city of portlands proper exercise of its governmental powers for purposes of public safety and convenience and that the elimination of access from the landowners property to the affected street did not constitute a taking C. holding that in reviewing the petition the court is to weigh the policy of public access to records against the longstanding public policy of providing a second chance to criminal defendants who have not been adjudicated guilty D. holding that 841bls mandatory minimum provisions were rationally related to the objectives of protecting public health and welfare E. holding that states grant of general corporate powers to hospital authorities does not include permission to use those powers anticompetitively

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the legislatures intentions in adopting 14day restoration provisions include 1 restora tion for purposes of prosecution 2 protecting the public through its police powers and 3 providing the accused with access to treatment as an alternative to incarceration
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 3.10(a), neither Borrower, any Restricted Subsidiary nor any of their respective ERISA Affiliates is party to, contributes to, is obligated to contribute to, or otherwise has any obligation or is bound by (a) any Multiemployer Plan or (b) any Plan subject to Section 433 of the Code. Except as set forth on Schedule 3.10(b), no ERISA Event has occurred within the previous five (5) years 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. Except as set forth on Schedule 3.10(b), neither the Borrower, any Restricted Subsidiary nor any of their respective ERISA Affiliates reasonably anticipates that any Material Adverse Effect will arise from any increase either in the annual financial expense for any Plan or Multiemployer Plan (determined in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87) or in the annual minimum funding contribution for any Plan or Multiemployer Plan (determined in accordance with the assumptions used for funding such Plan or Multiemployer Plan pursuant to Section 412, 430, 431 or 432 of the Code), and neither the Borrower, any Restricted Subsidiary nor any of their respective ERISA Affiliates is aware of any facts that could form the basis for materially changing the method of determining the actuarial assumptions, interest rates, or other calculations associated with any Plan or Multiemployer Plan. None of the assets of the Borrower, any Restricted Subsidiary or any of their respective ERISA Affiliates is the subject of any Lien arising under Section 303(k) of ERISA or Section 430(k) of the Code, and there are no facts which could be expected to give rise to such a Lien. Except as set forth on Schedule 3.10, as of the Effective Date, the present value of all accumulated benefit obligations under each Plan (based on the assumptions used for purposes of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87) did not, as of the date of the most recent financial statements reflecting such amounts, exceed the fair market value of the assets of such Plan. Except as set forth on Schedule 3.10, as of the Effective Date, no Multiemployer Plan is subject to the additional funding rules of Section 432 of the Code for multiemployer plans that are in endangered or critical status. As of the Effective Date, no Loan Party is nor will be (a) an employee benefit plan subject to ERISA, (b) a plan or account subject to Section 4975 of the Code; (c) an entity deemed to hold “plan assets” of any such plans or accounts for purposes of ERISA or the Code; or (d) a “governmental plan” within the meaning of ERISA.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: this agreement , any applicable privacy policy , any additional terms that accompany the application , and the terms for supplements and updates are the entire license agreement between you and application publisher for the application .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Grantor Joinder Agreement should be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, none of the parties hereto shall be required to comply with such provision for so long as such provision is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, but the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein and in the Pari Passu Intercreditor Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired. 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The net proceeds received by the Company hereunder shall be used to manufacture drugs, finish the Phase 1 trial, manufacture for the Phase 2a trial, IP costs, sponsored research at MD Anderson and general corporate purposes. The Company may not use funds received by the Company at any time to lend money, give credit or make advances to any officers, directors, employees, related parties, shareholders or affiliates of the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: record, as counsel for the INS acknowledged at oral argument. Such misrepresentations of the record are poor advocacy and waste both the court’s and other litigants’ time. We expect better from counsel, including government counsel. Cf. Thomas v. Digital Equip. Corp., 880 F.2d 1486, 1490-91 (1st Cir.1989) (sanctioning a party that made material misrepresentations of the record in its appellate brief). In any event, Neverson’s § 2241 claims provide no basis for vacating his deporta tion order. First, Neverson has withdrawn his argument that the INS’s use of his manslaughter conviction as a ground for deportation represents an unauthorized retroactive application of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). See Choeum v. INS, 129 F.3d 29, 37 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Second, to the extent Neverson’s § 2241 Options: A. recognizing that 1996 amendment to definition of aggravated felony applies retroactively B. holding that an ij or bia decision that occurs after september 30 1996 is an action taken that triggers iiriras aggravated felony rules C. recognizing that 1996 amendment specifically applies regardless of date of prior conviction constituting aggravated felony D. holding that drug felony under state law can constitute an aggravated felony for federal sentencing guidelines purposes even if the same conduct would not constitute a felony under federal law E. holding that the expanded definition of aggravated felony applies retroactively in actions taken on or after september 30 1996

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an ij or bia decision that occurs after september 30 1996 is an action taken that triggers iiriras aggravated felony rules
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: fashion. See PSCNY, 813 F.2d at 465. The second time, FERC posited directly — with only the flimsiest of support — its theory that investors need over six months to ascertain and take into account the market interest rates prevailing at any given time. See Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 46 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,089, at 61,-383-84 (1989) (Order on Remand); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 49 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,392, at 62,419-23 (denying rehearing of Order on Remand). I heartily agree with the court’s rejection of the Commission’s more recent explanation. At the very least, FERC was obliged to offer some convincing evidence in support of its facially implausible economic assumption, cf. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (<HOLDING>), and some explanation why accepting that Options: A. holding that the nonmoving party must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment B. holding that summary judgment on chapter 93a claim is appropriate when summary judgment is granted on fraud claim and chapter 93a claim is solely based on the underlying claim for common law fraud C. holding that on a motion for summary judgment the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient and there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff D. holding that for summary judgment purposes if the claim is one that simply makes no economic sense plaintiffs must come forward with more persuasive evidence to support their claim than would otherwise be necessary E. holding that where litigation involves more than one claim the origin of the claim test must be applied separately to each part

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that for summary judgment purposes if the claim is one that simply makes no economic sense plaintiffs must come forward with more persuasive evidence to support their claim than would otherwise be necessary
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 Borrower shall have the right, upon not less than three Business Days’ notice to the Administrative Agent, to terminate the Revolving Commitments of any Class or, from time to time, to reduce the amount of the Revolving Commitments of any Class ; provided that no such termination or reduction of Revolving Commitments shall be permitted if, after giving effect thereto and to any prepayments of the Revolving Loans made on the effective date thereof, the Outstanding Revolving Credits would exceed the Total Revolving Commitments. Any such reduction shall be in an amount equal to an integral multiple of $1,000,000 and not less than $5,000,000 and shall reduce permanently the Revolving Commitments of such Class then in effect.

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: of America or any State thereof relating to magnesite or magnesite products brokered by Possehl, and subsequently delivered to Resco during the period from 2000 through the present. Possehl, as Assignor, will make avail- . able for copying at the sole expense of Resco, as Assignee, records documenting the producing seller to Resco of products covered by this Assignment. Id. There is nothing wrong with the abstract legal basis of Resco’s theory of standing. It is well settled in the Third Circuit that “express assignments of antitrust claims from a direct purchaser to an indirect purchaser are permissible and do not run afoul of Illinois Brick’s standing requirements.” In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., 338 F.Supp.2d at 539 (citing Gulf-stream, III Associates, Inc., 995 F.2d at 438-440 (<HOLDING>)); see also In re Wellbutrin Sr Direct Options: A. holding in non 17200 case that common law claims duplicative of the flsa are preempted B. holding that any assignment of antitrust claims as a matter of federal common law must be an express assignment because an express assignment entirely eliminates any problems of split recoveries or duplicative liability C. holding that article 4a of the ucc preempts common law claims where they are inconsistent or duplicative D. holding that the determination of whether an individual is an independent contractor lies in the common law and not under an express provision of the act E. holding that ownership of vehicle later involved in accident passed to buyer even though assignment of title not completed

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that any assignment of antitrust claims as a matter of federal common law must be an express assignment because an express assignment entirely eliminates any problems of split recoveries or duplicative liability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The obligations of each party hereunder will continue and be binding irrespective of whether the discussion between the parties materialise into a specific understanding/business relationship or not and for a further period of three (3) years after termination/expiry of the Agreement. In any event, however, the obligations of each Party to maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Information it has received under this agreement shall continue indefinitely as to Confidential Information constituting a trade secret under applicable law.

assistant: Yes
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: From May 31, 2019 until December 31, 2019, you will receive transition payments at the rate of $10,000 per month. These transition payments will be paid 80% by FVE and 20% by RMR. Subject to any contribution required by you consistent with past practices, FVE will also maintain and provide your current insurance and employee benefits until the Separation Date, except that you will not accrue any vacation time.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The captions used in the Notice and this Agreement are inserted for convenience and will not be deemed a part of the Award for construction or interpretation. Except when otherwise indicated by the context, the singular will include the plural and the plural will include the singular. Use of the term “or” is not intended to be exclusive, unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

assistant: Construction
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: Delivery of a Notice or Request for a Revolving Credit Loan shall be made to the Lender at the address for notices in Section 11.4, or such other address designated by the Lender from time to time.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of Illinois. The parties hereby consent to the jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in the State of Illinois in the event that any disputes arise under this Agreement.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: did not abuse its discretion. {10} As Defendant points out, a lone biased juror undermines the impartiality of an entire jury. State v. McFall, 67 N.M. 260, 263, 354 P.2d 547, 549 (1960). Defendant fails to persuade us, however, that the trial court erred in finding a lack of bias on his jury. Defendant’s speculative argument primarily relies on cases in which extraneous information reached the jury, which creates a presumption of prejudice. State v. Sacoman, 107 N.M. 588, 591, 762 P.2d 250, 253 (1988) (stating that extraneous information improperly considered during deliberations creates a presumption of prejudice) (disapproved of on other grounds by State v. Mann, 2002-NMSC-001, ¶ 24, 131 N.M. 459, 39 P.3d 124); State v. Pettigrew, 116 N.M. 135, 140, 860 P.2d 777, 782 (Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Perea, 95 N.M. 777, 778-79, 626 P.2d Options: A. recognizing this presumption B. holding that a common law presumption of death is triggered after an absence of seven years C. recognizing that presumption of prejudice was triggered by jurors unauthorized contact with intern D. recognizing a presumption of reasonableness E. recognizing presumption

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that presumption of prejudice was triggered by jurors unauthorized contact with intern
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: 472 U.S. 478 105 S.Ct. 3492 86 L.Ed.2d 383 Holly JENSEN, etc., et al., petitioners,v.Frances J. QUARING No. 83-1944 Supreme Court of the United States June 17, 1985 On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 2 Justice POWELL took no part in the decision of this case.

assistant: 3
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: remarks does not depend on their offensiveness, but rather on their tendency to show that the decision-maker was motivated by assumptions or attitudes relating to the protected class.”). The individual who made each statement, i.e., Gold, is also the decision-maker with respect to the adverse employment acts. However, the other three factors suggest the statements are “stray comments” because, to varying degrees: their content is benign when considered in the context they were made; they are temporally remote from an adverse employment action; and/or they are unrelated to an employment decision or the decision making process. See id.; O’Connor v. Viacom Inc./Viacom Int’l Inc., No. 93 CIV. 2399 (LMM), 1996 WL 194299, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23), aff'd, 104 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). However, in considering all of the statements Options: A. holding that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant and denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant breached its duty to act in good faith B. holding that absent a casual link between supervisors isolated racial remarks and employers decision to promote stray remarks cannot support a verdict for race discrimination C. holding that comments which were considered by personnel board in normal course of considering employment action were relevant to establish discriminatory intent and were not just stray remarks D. holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate pretext where employer allegedly referred to irish employees in derogatory terms and emphasizing that many courts have held that stray remarks in the workplace by themselves and without a demonstrated nexus to the complained of personnel actions will not defeat the employers motion for summary judgment E. holding that the nonmoving party may not defeat a summary judgment motion by standing on the bare allegations in the pleadings

assistant: The best answer is D. holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate pretext where employer allegedly referred to irish employees in derogatory terms and emphasizing that many courts have held that stray remarks in the workplace by themselves and without a demonstrated nexus to the complained of personnel actions will not defeat the employers motion for summary judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: conclude that knowledge of a financial relationship between Thurman and ICE can be equated with knowledge of the existence of ICE's security interest in the truck, let alone with knowledge that the sale of the truck from Thurman to Chris-man violated ICE's rights. This is the case even when we consider that the sale took plaee at another auction after the auction ended because, by all accounts, it was Thurman's subsequent failure to pay ICE, not the sale of the truck, that violated ICKE'3 rights. In the absence of designated evidence showing that Chrisman or the Aldersons had knowledge that the sale of the truck violated ICE's rights, Chris-man and the Aldersons were buyers in the ordinary course of business. See Madrid v. Bloomington Auto Co., 782 N.E.2d 386, 397 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). ICE also argues that Indiana Code Section Options: A. holding in an action brought by buyers for specific performance of a contract for the sale of stock that the judicial admission exception was not satisfied by the sellers deposition testimony admitting that after meeting with the buyer he shook the buyers hand and stated weve got a deal because the statement even when taken in context with the preceding negotiations described by the seller in his deposition established neither a quantity nor price for the stocks B. holding that where no evidence was designated to show that a car buyer knew that a sale violated the rights of the dealership that owned the car the buyers were buyers in the ordinary course of business for purposes of indcode 26112019 C. holding that a purchaser of a vehicle was a buyer in the ordinary course of business even though the car dealer did not provide the certificate of title at the time of the sale D. holding that auctioneer who handled sale of car between seller and buyer could not be held liable for allegedly defective condition of car E. holding that even though the contract limited the buyers remedies to specific performance or a refund of earnest money they were entitled to damages in the amount of the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property where the seller thwarted the buyers right to specific performance by selling the property to another at a higher price

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where no evidence was designated to show that a car buyer knew that a sale violated the rights of the dealership that owned the car the buyers were buyers in the ordinary course of business for purposes of indcode 26112019