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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: when you provide your data or your content to bing places , you grant microsoft a worldwide , royalty-free intellectual property license to use , reproduce , save , modify , aggregate , promote , transmit , display or distribute as part of a service , and sub-license those rights to third parties .

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: If any term or other provision of this Assignment is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced by any rule of law or public policy, all other conditions and provisions of this Assignment shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the economic or legal substance of the transactions contemplated hereby is not affected in any manner adverse to any party. Upon such determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Assignment so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible in an acceptable manner to the end that the transactions contemplated hereby are fulfilled to the greatest extent possible.

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: Iowa Admin. Code 701-52.1(4)(422), Example 7 (Westlaw 2008); Mass. Dep'i of Revenue, Corporate Excise DOR Directive 96-2, July 3, 1996. 11 . See eg., 50, 605 S.E.2d 187, 195 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 821, 126 S.Ct. 353, 163 L.Ed.2d 62 (2005) (determining that "where a wholly-owned subsidiary licenses trademarks to a related retail company operating stores located within North Carolina, there exists a substantial nexus with the State sufficient to satisfy the Commerce Clause"); Tax Comm'r of State v. MBNA America Bank, 220 W.Va. 163, 640 S.E.2d 226, 234 (2006) (rejecting physical presence test and noting such a rigid interpretation of the Commerce Clause "makes little sense in today's world"); Comptroller of the Treasury v. SYL, Inc., 375 Md. 78, 825 A.2d 399, 415 (App.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Surtees v. VFJ Ventures, Inc., 8 Options: A. holding when real estate is conveyed to a child and consideration is paid by the parent the parent has the burden of proving a gift was not intended B. recognizing that third party may not recover contribution against parent where child has no cause of action against parent for negligent supervision C. recognizing that entities holding intellectual property for parent company had no real economic substance and allowing taxation of a portion of income attributable to parent corporations business in the state D. holding that a parent company was not liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by its subsidiary because the parent company was not a stranger to the business relationship between its subsidiary and the plaintiff giving rise to and underpinning the contract E. recognizing that a foster parent may attain the status of psychological parent when the relationship is not temporary in duration and exists with the consent and encouragement of a childs legal parent or guardian

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that entities holding intellectual property for parent company had no real economic substance and allowing taxation of a portion of income attributable to parent corporations business in the state
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: Executive agrees to cooperate with the Company, during the Term and for the two (2) years immediately thereafter, by being reasonably available to testify on behalf of the Company or any affiliate in any action, suit, or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, or investigative, and to assist the Company, or any affiliate, in any such action, suit or proceeding, by providing information and meeting and consulting at mutually agreeable times and places with the Board or its representatives or counsel, or representatives or counsel to the Company, or any affiliate, as reasonably requested; provided that such obligation to cooperate does not unreasonably interfere with Executive’s business or personal affairs. The Company agrees to reimburse Executive for all reasonable expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) incurred by Executive in connection with his provision of testimony or assistance or other cooperation contemplated by this Section.

assistant: Cooperation
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 party irrevocably and unconditionally (i) submits to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of any United States Federal or New York State court sitting in Manhattan, and any appellate court from any such court, solely for the purpose of any suit, action or proceeding brought to enforce its obligations under this Amendment or relating in any way to this Amendment and (ii) waives, to the fullest extent it may effectively do so, any defense of an inconvenient forum to the maintenance of such action or proceeding in any such court and any right of jurisdiction on account of its place of residence or domicile.

assistant: Submission To Jurisdiction
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: April 2013 noted Plaintiffs diarrhea. PagelD 1418. Thus, the ALJ’s determination — that Plaintiffs “allegations of frequent use of the bathroom have not been verified by others in the record” — is inaccurate. See PagelD 706, Based on all of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the ALJ erred by.failing to find that Plaintiffs abdominal impairment was severe. Such error can be harmless where an ALJ finds that Plaintiff suffers from at least one severe impairment at Step Two — the ALJ here found Plaintiffs aortic valve, COPD, disc disease, and aneurysm repair were severe impairments — and considers the limiting effects all of impairments, severe or not, when determining the claimant’s RFC at Steps Four and Five. See White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 312 Fed.Appx. 779, 787 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); see also Johnson v. Colvin, No. 3:13cv301, Options: A. holding that harm must be sufficiently severe and rise above mere harassment B. holding that only the severity requirements of the crossreferenced mental impairments must be met while all of the requirements for the crossreferenced physical impairments must be met to prove alcoholism disabling at step three C. holding emotional distress suffered must be severe and not trivial D. holding that once one severe impairment is found the combined effect of all impairments must be considered even if other impairments would not be severe E. holding condition was not severe impairment where it improved from treatment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that once one severe impairment is found the combined effect of all impairments must be considered even if other impairments would not be severe
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: CURIAM. DENIED. See Barnes v. Barnes, 124 So.3d 994, 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>). WOLF, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., Options: A. holding that when an accident occurs outside florida workers compensation benefits are payable only if the contract of employment was made in florida or if the employees employment is principally located in florida B. recognizing that as to notice publication in the laws of florida or the florida statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions C. holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree D. recognizing home state jurisdiction under 61514la florida statutes if florida was the childs home state at any time during the six months preceding the filing of the custody proceeding E. recognizing that publication in the laws of florida or the florida statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing home state jurisdiction under 61514la florida statutes if florida was the childs home state at any time during the six months preceding the filing of the custody proceeding
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices to the Company shall be addressed to: EchoStar Corporation, 100 Inverness Terrace East, Englewood, Colorado, 80112, Attn: Corporate Secretary, or to such other address or person as the Company may notify Grantee from time to time. All notices to Grantee or other person or persons then entitled to exercise the Option shall be addressed to Grantee or such other person(s) at Grantee's address on file with the Company, or to such other address as Grantee or such person(s) may notify the Company or its administrator for the Option in writing 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: she accordingly lacks the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing,” which is “an injury in fact that is ... actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Drutis, 499 F.3d at 611 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Majority correctly observes that “[o]ur decision in Horvath did not revolve around whether the plaintiff suffered a financial loss.” (Majority Op. at 416.) It did, however, turn on the question of whether the plaintiff had demonstrated an individual loss, i.e., an actual injury to that particular plaintiff. That showing is required when a plaintiff is seeking individual relief under ERISA. See In re Unisys Sav. Plan Litig., 173 F.3d 145, 159 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Yet the Majority appears to conclude, as one Options: A. holding that claims for equitable relief under 502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa B. holding that equitable relief is not available to an individual under this section of the fdcpa C. holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa 502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan D. holding that a civil rights plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under fmla against individual individual is not employer subject to liability under the act E. holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa 502a3 in contrast to 502a2 which allows relief on behalf of a plan is required to prove an individual loss

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa 502a3 in contrast to 502a2 which allows relief on behalf of a plan is required to prove an individual loss
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 binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Borrower, the Servicer, the Backup Servicer, the Image File Custodian, each Agent, the Secured Parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns and, in addition, each Hedge Counterparty shall be an express third-party beneficiary of this Agreement.

assistant: Binding Effects
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 subject matter jurisdiction, and its argument on the merits responded to contentions in plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff is not prejudiced by treating defendant’s motion as to Count Six as one for summary judgment, because the parties’ cross-proposed findings and evidentiary showings on all counts proceeded under RCFC 56. 7 . If notice were required, plaintiff argues that satisfactory notice was provided through the CSSRs. Plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that the contracting officer had actual notice of the overruns. Although defendant contends that this notice did not conform with the requirements of the LOGO clause, actual notice has been held to be "the substantial equivalent.” See Appeal of Applied Technology Assocs., Inc., 98-1 BCA ¶ 29,633, 1998 WL 122361 (1998) (<HOLDING>); see also American Electronic Labs., 774 F.2d Options: A. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required B. holding that monthly progress payment requests which indicated funding status provided notice required under logo clause C. holding monthly invoice qualified as a false claim under the fca D. recognizing that the applicant received notice from the plea form even though such notice was not required E. holding that the plaintiffs complaint was valid because despite general allegations it provided notice

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that monthly progress payment requests which indicated funding status provided notice required under logo clause
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 representations and warranties set forth in Article II and Article III and in the Buyer’s Certificate and Seller’s Certificate shall survive the Closing for a period of 18 months and shall thereupon expire, together with any right to indemnification for breach thereof, and be of no further force or effect, except to the extent a Valid Third Party Claim Notice or Valid Other Claim Notice (each, a “ Valid Claim Notice ”) shall have been given prior to such date in accordance with Section 11.3 by the party seeking indemnification (the “ Indemnified Party ”) to the party from whom indemnification is being sought (the “ Indemnifying Party ”), in which case the representation or warranty alleged in the Valid Claim Notice to have been breached shall survive only to the extent of the claim set forth in the Valid Claim Notice, until such claim is resolved in accordance with this Agreement and any covenant or agreement contained herein to be complied with at or prior to the Closing (the “ Pre-Closing Covenants ”) shall terminate on the Closing Date and shall therefore be of no further force or effect provided , that the representations and warranties (i) set forth in Sections 2.1 (Acquired Entities’ Organization; Power and Authority; and Qualification), 2.2 (Seller’s Organization; Corporate Authority and Approval), 2.3 (Capitalization), 2.4 (Title to Acquired Equity), 2.10 (Title to Assets), 2.15 (Environmental Matters), 2.20 (Taxes), and (ii) set forth in Sections 3.1 (Organization and Good Standing) and 3.2 (Authority and Approval) (collectively, the “ Fundamental Representations ”) shall survive for a period beginning on the Closing Date and ending upon the fifth anniversary of the Closing Date. The covenants and agreements contained herein to be complied with after the Closing (other than the covenant and agreement to indemnify against breaches of representations and warranties and Pre-Closing Covenants, which shall expire as set forth in the first sentence of this Section 11.1 ) shall survive the Closing in accordance with their terms (the “ Post-Closing Covenants ”).

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 the Committee may otherwise permit pursuant to the Plan, during the period before the shares of Restricted Stock vest in accordance with Section 2 (the “ Restriction Period ”), the non-vested shares of Restricted Stock may not be sold, assigned, encumbered, transferred, pledged or otherwise disposed of by the Participant. Any attempt by the Participant to assign, transfer, pledge or otherwise dispose of the shares of Restricted Stock contrary to the provisions hereof, and the levy of any execution, attachment or similar process upon the shares of Restricted Stock, shall be null, void and without effect. The rights and protections of the Company hereunder shall extend to any successors or assigns of the Company and to the Company’s parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates. This Agreement may be assigned by the Company without the Participant’s consent.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the doctrine of equitable subrogration, the Government violated a “duty, implicit in the three-party relationship between [the Government], the contractor, and the surety,” to administer the contract in a responsible manner. PI. Mot at 18-19. This argument, however, fails to recognize that the court’s jurisdiction is dependant on the doctrine of equitable subrogation. United Surety, 87 Fed.Cl. at 587 (“Because United Surety became a performing and paying surety for Selpa, United Surety has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of the Tucker Act under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.”). Although a surety bond creates a third-party relationship, the surety does not assume privity of contract with the Government. Ransom v. United States, 900 F.2d 242, 244-45 (Fed.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Without privity, the surety may only satisfy Options: A. holding that a federal regulation did not create privity of contract between the plaintiff and the government B. holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety C. holding that absent privity between plaintiffs and the government there is no ease D. recognizing that the gjovernment as obligee owes no equitable duty to a surety unless the surety notifies the government that the principal has defaulted under the bond notice by the surety is essential before any governmental duty exists E. holding that a surety has standing to sue for a progress payment released by the government after notification by the surety of unpaid subcontractors

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety
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 provided in Paragraph 16, this Agreement is the entire agreement between the Parties. Except as provided herein, this Agreement supersedes any and all prior oral or written promises or agreements between the Parties. Executive acknowledges that Executive has not relied on any promise, representation, or statement other than those set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement cannot be modified except in writing signed by all Parties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “a legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas searched or the items seized.” Id.; see also Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). The question is whether the defendant demonstrates a sufficient connection to the areas searched or the items seized based on the totality of the circumstances. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); People v. Whisler, 724 P.2d 648, 649 (Colo.1986); People v. Spies, 200 Colo. 434, 439-40, 615 P.2d 710, 714 (1980). A subjective expectation of privacy is legitimate for purposes of the Fourth Amendment only if it is “one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J. concurring) (<HOLDING>); see also Rakas, 439 U.S. at 144 n. 12, 99 Options: A. holding that telephone users have no expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers because they voluntarily expose such information to the service provider B. holding that a customer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers which were conveyed to the telephone company C. holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth D. holding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in blood sample drawn by hospital E. holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth
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: Circuit Judge. In November 2006, Domick R. Nelson defaulted on a consumer debt of $751.87. On February 25, 2015, she filed a Chapter 13 petition in bankruptcy court. Midland Credit Management, Inc., as agent for the creditor, filed a proof of claim in bankruptcy court for the amount of the debt. According to the proof of claim, Nelson made no payment on the debt after November 2006. Nelson objected to the proof of claim, arguing it was time-barred. See § 516.120(1) RSMo 2000; Discovery Grp. LLC v. Chapel Dev., LLC, 574 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). The bankruptcy court agreed, disallowing Options: A. holding that standard of review is a matter of procedural rather than substantive law B. holding that statutes of limitations are considered substantive matters for purposes of the erie doctrine C. holding that substantive aspects of claims under federal discrimination statutes and fcra are identical D. holding that courts apply the procedural law of the forum and the substantive law of the jurisdiction originating the claim E. recognizing that missouri statutes of limitations are procedural not substantive and merely suspend the remedy without extinguishing the right

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that missouri statutes of limitations are procedural not substantive and merely suspend the remedy without extinguishing the right
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: Welliver was originally entered into by Wellco, Inc. as Welliver’s predecessor. 4 . Ward is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Bloss-burg, Pennsylvania. 5 . A “turn-key” project is one “in which all owner need do is 'turn the key' in the lock to open the building with nothing remaining to be done and all risks lo be assumed by contractor.” Black's Law Dictionary 1055 (6th ed.1991). 6 . Welliver is located in Elmira, New York. 7 . Ward Excavating is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business located in Troy, Pennsylvania. 8 . The phrases "peculiar risk” and "special danger” are used interchangeably. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 416 comment a (1965); Ortiz v. Ra-El Dev. Corp., 365 Pa.Su per. 48, 528 A.2d 1355, 1357 n. 2 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Nowhere in their Brief in Opposition to Options: A. holding that an agreement which required the submission of an affidavit of payment to subcontractors or lien waivers before payment was made by the general contractor was for the direct benefit of the subcontractors B. holding corporation that contracted with independent contractor not liable to subcontractors employee plaintiff was unable to establish that peculiar risk or special danger caused injury C. holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee D. holding that contract charged primary contractor with a duty of care for all employees on the work site including employees of its subcontractors where contract required primary contractor to comply with applicable state and federal safety statutes and regulations made primary contractor responsible for reviewing safety programs of its subcontractors and primary contractor employed a safety officer to oversee its subcontractors operations E. holding that bankruptcy trustee for contractor could not avoid prepetition payment of funds from contractor to subcontractors

assistant: The best answer is B. holding corporation that contracted with independent contractor not liable to subcontractors employee plaintiff was unable to establish that peculiar risk or special danger caused injury
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: source of funds used to purchase the Casino Property- The Court finds, however, that the Secretary’s decision to take the Casino Property into trust is reasonable and supported by ample evidence. After reviewing all relevant documents submitted by the Band, the OIGM analyst concluded that a preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that WELSA funds were exclusively used to purchase the Casino Property, and that there was a lack of evidence that other funds were used to purchase the Casino Property. When reviewing agency actions, the question is not whether the Court would have come to the same conclusion, but whether the agency conclusion is supported by a rational basis. Voyageurs Nat’l Park, 381 F.3d at 763; Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Dole, 828 F.2d 799, 804-05 (D.C.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Based on the above, the Court finds that the Options: A. holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record B. holding that the district court determines the amount of loss under the preponderance of the evidence standard C. holding that the district court is limited to considering the administrative record in reviewing the denial of benefits under an erisa plan D. holding that the apa does not permit a reviewing court to decide which side of the factual dispute it thinks the preponderance of the evidence in the administrative record falls on E. holding that under the substantial evidence standard the reviewing court must decide whether on this record it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the agencys conclusion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the apa does not permit a reviewing court to decide which side of the factual dispute it thinks the preponderance of the evidence in the administrative record falls on
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: Other than consummating the transactions contemplated hereunder, such Purchaser has not, nor has any Person acting on behalf of or pursuant to any understanding with such Purchaser, directly or indirectly executed any purchases or sales, including Short Sales, of the securities of the Company during the period commencing as of the time that such Purchaser first received a term sheet (written or oral) from the Company or any other Person representing the Company setting forth the material pricing terms of the transactions contemplated hereunder and ending immediately prior to the execution hereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a Purchaser that is a multi-managed investment vehicle whereby separate portfolio managers manage separate portions of such Purchaser’s assets and the portfolio managers have no direct knowledge of the investment decisions made by the portfolio managers managing other portions of such Purchaser’s assets, the representation set forth above shall only apply with respect to the portion of assets managed by the portfolio manager that made the investment decision to purchase the Securities covered by this Agreement. Other than to other Persons party to this Agreement or to such Purchaser’s representatives, including, without limitation, its officers, directors, partners, legal and other advisors, employees, agents and Affiliates, such Purchaser has maintained the confidentiality of all disclosures made to it in connection with this transaction (including the existence and terms of this transaction). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing contained herein shall constitute a representation or warranty, or preclude any actions, with respect to the identification of the availability of, or securing of, available shares to borrow in order to effect Short Sales or similar transactions in the future.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: alleged interest created by the State rises to the level of ‘property,’ thereby securing the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”). Significantly, § 42-56-22, like § 42-56-21, vests Wall with total discretion over whether Young may work at all, by making the labor of prisoners subject to the “discretion of the director” and contingent upon receipt of the “express consent of the director.” Such discretion evidences a lack of intent to provide prisoners with a protected property interest. See, e.g., Jennings v. Lombardi, 70 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir.1995) (reasoning that “[wjhere the statute or policy ... grants to the decisionmaker discretionary authority in implementing it, a protected property interest is not created”); cf. Bishop v. State, 667 A.2d 275, 277-78 (R.I.1995) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, under Rhode Island law, a Options: A. holding that where the defendant challenges the use of documents purporting to establish the washington classification of an outofstate conviction the state must present additional evidence of the proper classification so as to carry its burden of proving the defendants criminal history by a preponderance of the evidence B. holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison C. holding that prisoner had no constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in prisoninmate classification system process where director of department of corrections retained unfettered discretion in classification and housing of prisoners D. holding that a statecreated liberty interest in ones classification may exist where classification imposes atypical and significant hardship E. holding that inmates have no constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in access to grievance procedure

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that prisoner had no constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in prisoninmate classification system process where director of department of corrections retained unfettered discretion in classification and housing of prisoners
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: Requirements . Prior to the issuance of any Shares or cash pursuant to an Award (or exercise thereof) or such earlier time as any Tax Obligations with respect to the Award are due, the Company and/or other Employer, as applicable, will have the power and the right to deduct or withhold, or require a Participant to remit to the Company or other Employer , as applicable, an amount sufficient to satisfy all Tax Obligations with respect to the Award (or exercise thereof).

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: The Confidential Information Materials and the other reports, financial statements, certificates and other information furnished in writing by the Borrowers or any of their representatives in connection with the negotiation of this Agreement or delivered hereunder (as modified or supplemented by other information so furnished), are complete and correct in all material respects and do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements contained therein not materially misleading in light of the circumstances under which such statements have been made. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is understood and agreed that the periodic reports and other information of FCX filed with the SEC pursuant to Section 13 of the Exchange Act speak as of the date of such reports or other filings and not of any subsequent time and, therefore, the representation set forth in the first sentence of this paragraph is applicable to the information contained in such reports or other filings only as of the date of such reports or other filings. Additionally, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the representation in the first sentence of this paragraph shall not apply to forward‑looking information contained in the filings made by FCX or PXP with the SEC pursuant to Section 13 of the Exchange Act, and the Borrowers shall have no liability with respect to such forward‑looking information, except to the extent that FCX would have liability to investors in its public securities under the Exchange Act after the application of Section 21E of the Exchange Act.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will not, and will not permit any of its Subsidiaries to, use the proceeds of any Loans, whether directly or indirectly, and whether immediately, incidentally or ultimately, to purchase or carry margin stock (within the meaning of Regulation U of the Board) or to extend credit to others for the purpose of purchasing or carrying margin stock or to refund indebtedness originally incurred for such purpose.

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: and that his $2,397.20 per month in long-term disability income, his future earnings, and the personal property he was awarded in the divorce decree would enable him to keep Wife on his health insurance for two years and make her car payments for one year. In addition, the parties were in their ninth year of marriage when they divorced, and the evidence authorized the court to conclude that Wife’s misconduct, as alleged by Husband, was unintentional or did not warrant denial of the limited alimony she was awarded. Because there is some evidence in the record to support the award and it was not made pursuant to an erroneous legal analysis, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Wife alimony. See Bloomfield v. Bloomfield, 282 Ga. 108, 108, 112 (646 SE2d 207) (2007) (<HOLDING>); Farrish v. Farrish, 279 Ga. 551, 552 (615 Options: A. holding that family courts conclusions will not be set aside if supported by findings B. holding that a factfinders rulings will be upheld if supported by reasonable substantial and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole C. holding that a trial courts ruling on a motion for new trial will be upheld if it is correct on any applicable legal theory even if the court articulated an invalid basis D. holding that the trial courts factual findings related to alimony will be upheld on appeal if supported by any evidence E. holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the trial courts factual findings related to alimony will be upheld on appeal if supported by any evidence
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 in the Merger Agreement (including, without limitation, filings as may be required under applicable securities laws) and except for any filing required under Section 13 or Section 16 under the Exchange Act, and except for all necessary filings and submissions required to be made by a Shareholder with any Governmental Entity in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, (x) no filing with, and no permit, authorization, consent or approval of, any Governmental Entity or any other Person (other than such approvals of such Shareholder’s Affiliates as have been obtained on or prior to the date hereof) is necessary for the execution of this Agreement by such Shareholder and the performance by such Shareholder of its obligations hereunder, and (y) none of the execution and delivery of this Agreement by such Shareholder, or the consummation by such Shareholder of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or compliance by such Shareholder with any of the provisions of this Agreement shall (i) conflict with or result in any breach of the organizational documents, if applicable, of such Shareholder, (ii) result in, give rise to or constitute a violation or breach of or a default (or any event which with notice or lapse of time or both would become a violation, breach or default) under, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation of, or result in the creation of a Lien on any of such Shareholder’s Subject Shares pursuant to, any of the terms, conditions or provisions of any note, bond, mortgage, indenture, contract, lease, license, permit, agreement, commitment, arrangement, understanding, or other obligation of any kind to which such Shareholder is a party or by which such Shareholder or any of its Subject Shares are bound, or (iii) violate any applicable law, rule, regulation, order, judgment, or decree applicable to such Shareholder, except for in each case under clauses (i) and (ii) as would not impair such Shareholder’s ability to perform in any material respect its obligations under this Agreement.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the event of a Change in Control, the Award(s) specified in the Notice of Grant shall be dealt with as provided in Article 17 of the Plan. If the vesting of an Award is subject, in whole or in part, to the satisfaction of a performance condition, that Award shall be subject to Section 17(c) of the Plan and applicable performance conditions shall be deemed to have been satisfied as if target performance had been achieved in connection with the Change in Control.

assistant: Change In Control
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 Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties on separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which when taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page to this Amendment by facsimile or e-mail transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.

assistant: Counterparts
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: i.e., a rule dictated by precedent (Strickland) existing at the time Frazer’s conviction became final. When, as here, a Supreme Court case provides the source of an “old” Teague rule, that “old” rule, by definition, “will constitute clearly established Federal law ... under” AEDPA. Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the case at hand, the State does not even contend that Flores-Ortega announced a new rule under Teag-ue. A survey of the legal landscape as it existed when Frazer’s conviction and sentence became final conclusively demonstrates that it did not. For, as explained above, and by the Supreme Court itself in Flores-Ortega, Strickland dictated Flores-Ortega. See also Lewis v. Johnson, 359 F.3d 646, 655 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Hudson v. Hunt, 235 F.3d 892, 896 (4th Options: A. holding the record did not contain enough facts to determine whether the statute was constitutional as applied to the particular facts and circumstances of the case B. holding that floresortegas application of the strickland standard was dictated by precedent and merely clarified the law as is applied to the particular facts of that case C. holding that although the board set forth the appropriate standard of review at the outset of its decision in this case whether the bia properly applied that standard was a question of law D. holding that but for standard applied to retaliation case brought under texas law E. holding that in federal cases partys right to assert a privilege is dictated by federal law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that floresortegas application of the strickland standard was dictated by precedent and merely clarified the law as is applied to the particular facts of that 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: our precedents still foreclose a defendant from successfully excluding “evidence that has been ‘come at by exploitation’ of a violation of somebody else’s rights.” Jarvi 537 F.3d at 1259. Defendant concedes on appeal that he lacks “standing” to challenge the officer’s initial entry, which means that he had no expectation of privacy in Gonzalez’s residence. Defendant’s brief demonstrates he understands the equivalence of these two concepts. Even if Defendant had not made this concession, we would affirm the district court’s conclusion that Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in Gonzalez’s residence. The district court’s conclusion falls squarely within a host of controlling authority. See, e.g., Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 90, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Thomas, 372 F.3d 1173, 1176 Options: A. holding a person at anothers residence solely for the purpose of engaging in drug related activity has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence B. holding that residence in the cnmi before 2009 was not residence in the united states for naturalization purposes C. holding residence means legal residence for will probate D. holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found E. holding a person who is present at anothers home with permission simply for the purpose of consummating a business transaction does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there

assistant: The best answer is A. holding a person at anothers residence solely for the purpose of engaging in drug related activity has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence
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: under the habitual offender statutes. However, the cases cited by the dissent all involve prior felony convictions that were vacated on appeal or in post-conviction relief proceedings. Such cases would not fall within the rule we announce in this opinion, and we do not find them dispositive under these circumstances. BROWN, Judge dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that the trial court lacked the ability to suspend Gardiner's sentence below the minimum sentence. I do not find the Model Penal Code or Hutcherson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 962 (Ind.1982), cited by the majority, to be determinative or persuasive here. In fact, Indiana courts have allowed similar relief under the habitual offender statutes. See, eg., Coble v. State, 500 N.E.2d 1221, 1223 (Ind.1986) (<HOLDING>); Olinger v. State, 494 N.E.2d 310, 311 Options: A. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing defendant to present evidence of his subjective belief regarding his status as habitual offender because his belief was irrelevant to offense of driving as habitual offender B. holding that a defendant sentenced as an habitual offender who later successfully challenges one of his predicate offenses may have his habitual offender status and sentencing enhancement vacated through postconviction relief or a motion to correct erroneous sentence C. holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation D. holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony E. holding that predicate crimes for which defendant received probation and adjudication could be considered for purposes of habitual offender enhancement

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a defendant sentenced as an habitual offender who later successfully challenges one of his predicate offenses may have his habitual offender status and sentencing enhancement vacated through postconviction relief or a motion to correct erroneous sentence