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: into a level two stop," Ray, 2000 UT App 55 at { 13 n. 2, 998 P.2d 274, holding an individual's identification card longer than is necessary to obtain the information needed to run a warrants check will. See, eg., Unit ed States v. Johnson, 326 F.3d 1018, 1022 (8th Cir.2003) (stating suspect was seized when, inter alia, police officers "took possession of his personal property-here, his driver's license"), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 962, 124 S.Ct. 425, 157 LEd2d 304 (2003); United States v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1064, 1068 (10th Cir.1995) ("[When law enforcement officials retain an individual's driver's lHeense in the course of questioning him, that individual, as a general rule, will not reasonably feel free to terminate the encounter."); State v. Painter, 296 Or. 422, 676 P.2d 309, 311 (1984) (<HOLDING>); State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 427 Options: A. holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer B. holding seizure occurred when police officer retained drivers license while making radio warrants check C. holding that defendant was not free to leave when officer directed defendant to stay while he conducted a warrants check D. holding that detention ended when police officer returned drivers license and registration and driver voluntarily consented to additional questioning E. holding encounter became improper detention when officer took passengers license back to police car to run warrant check

assistant: The best answer is B. holding seizure occurred when police officer retained drivers license while making radio warrants check
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: claim here. See Stone v. Powell, supra. 4 . The state argues that the question asked Harryman was “a question in form only in the sense that it was uttered in general wonderment,” that it therefore did not call for an answer, and thus that Harryman’s response should be considered independently from the question as a statement that he simply “volunteered.” See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1629. (“Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today.”) The state does not contend, nor does it appear, that Harryman’s statement was unresponsive to the officer’s question and thus volunteered within the meaning of our decision in United States v. Menichino, 497 F.2d 935, 941 (5th Cir. 1974) (<HOLDING>). See also United States v. La Monica, 472 F.2d Options: A. holding statements by coconspirator nontestimonial and thus admissible B. holding admissible statements volunteered by accused during booking process but not in response to officerinitiated inquiries C. holding that selfinitiated statements volunteered after miranda warnings had been given are admissible D. holding inconsistent out of court statements otherwise admissible not admissible against government in criminal prosecution E. holding that evidence of customer inquiries is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule

assistant: The best answer is B. holding admissible statements volunteered by accused during booking process but not in response to officerinitiated inquiries
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: as it is governed by the guidelines. Upward departure sentences are distinguishable from an HFO or HVFO sentences because the latter are specifically exempted from the guidelines. Cf. § 775.084(4)(g), Fla. Stat. (1997) (a habitual offender sentence is not subject to the guidelines provisions of section 921.001). Thus, we hold that the trial court could properly impose an upward departure sentence in this case. AFFIRMED. BARFIELD, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ„ concur. 1 . Section 784.08 no longer requires that the appellant be sentenced pursuant to the guide lines or the Criminal Punishment Code. See 1999 Fla. Laws, ch. 99-188, § 5, 1051. However, the appellant committed his crime in July of 1998. Thus, the 1997 version of the statute applies. Green v. State, 907 So.2d 489, 502 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The statute does not require a sentence Options: A. holding that statutory good time credits must be calculated under the law in effect at the time of resentencing after an appeal of the sentence is determined B. holding that a defendants sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time he committed the offense C. holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision D. holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal E. holding that for purposes of revoking supervised release the applicable guidelines are those in effect at the time of the supervised release violations rather than those in effect at the time of initial offense

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a defendants sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time he committed the offense
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: defendant’s conversion by wrongful act inconsistent with the property rights of the plaintiff; and (3) damages.” In re Emery, 317 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Burlesci v. Petersen, 68 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1065, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 704 (1998)). One partner can be liable to another for conversion of partnership property. Oakdale Vill. Grp. v. Fong, 43 Cal.App.4th 539, 546, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 (1996), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Apr. 10, 1996). Further, intangible property such as corporate shares and bonds may be the proper subject of a conversion claim. See Am. Bankers Mortgage Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 75 F.3d 1401, 1411 (9th Cir.1996) (collecting California cases); see also Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp., 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 125, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 (2007) (<HOLDING>). However, more abstract intangible property, Options: A. holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding B. holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss C. holding that it is not D. holding insufficiently definite bonus agreement that did not establish amount or method for determining amount of payment E. holding that a businesss net operating loss is the proper subject of conversion because it is a definite recordable amount

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a businesss net operating loss is the proper subject of conversion because it is a definite recordable amount
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: In deciding whether to grant a motion to sever, “[t]he trial court has a wide range of discretion,” and the trial’s court’s decision must be left undisturbed, “absent a showing of clear prejudice [on the non-moving party] or abuse of discretion.” United States v. Acker, 52 F.3d 509, 514 (4th Cir.1995). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments in this case, the court concludes that the defendant’s motion to sever must be granted. While the court recognizes that requests for testimony from a prosecutor trying a criminal case are generally disfavored, United States v. Ziesman, 409 F.3d 941, 950 (8th Cir.2005), “the defendant’s obligation to resort to alternative means of adducing factual testimony is not absolute,” United States v. Prantil, 756 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir.1985). See Id. at 764 (<HOLDING>). At this stage of the proceedings, the court Options: A. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint B. holding that there is no indication that the district court abused its discretion in denying the discoverysanction motion C. holding that the defendant must demonstrate not only that the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for substitution of counsel but that the defendant was prejudiced by that error under strickland D. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question E. holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants timely motion for the substitution of the participating prosecutor in order to permit the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants timely motion for the substitution of the participating prosecutor in order to permit the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness
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: Here it is insurmountable, because § 270.10(i) does not merely define the triggers in terms of what is “protective of human health or the environment.” Rather, as discussed in Part III A, the regulation provides nine relatively specific factors to guide that determination. RCRA does not require more. In its opening brief, the Coalition further argued that EPA should have defined what is protective of human health or the environment numerically, in terms of the threshold risk level that will trigger an SSRA or dictate unconditional approval of a permit. At oral argument, the Coalition receded from this claim, see Oral Arg. Recording at 1:34:32, 1:35:34, and sensibly so. There is nothing in the statutory language that compels such a numerical definition. Cf. New Mexico, 114 F.3d at 293 (<HOLDING>). To the contrary, section 3004(q)’s Options: A. holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary B. holding that where plaintiffs alleged that the plan suffered significant losses and requested that fiduciaries make good to the plan the losses to the plan they need not seek to recover for all plan participants allegedly injured by the fiduciary breach C. holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan D. holding that a creditors failure to vote or to object to a chapter 11 plan constitutes acceptance of the plan E. holding that a statutory mandate to set criteria for waste plan certification says nothing to suggest that the criteria must be detailed or quantitative

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a statutory mandate to set criteria for waste plan certification says nothing to suggest that the criteria must be detailed or quantitative
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: Upon the death of Executive, the Company shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving notice of such death, pay Executive's estate all salary and other compensation hereunder, then due and payable and all accrued vacation pay and bonuses, if any, in each case payable or accrued through the date of death. In addition, the Company shall pay Executive's estate, at the time or times otherwise payable under the terms of this Agreement, all salary and accrued benefits that would have been payable hereunder by the Company to Executive during the one-year period immediately following Executive's death. Any payment due under this Section 4.1 may be funded by one or more policies of life insurance to be purchased by the Company and which provide for a benefit in the amount payable to Executive as beneficiary under such policy or policies equal to that due Executive under this Section. In the event the Company purchases such policy or policies and thereafter maintains such policy or policies in continuous and full force and effect during the term hereof, then Executive agrees to look solely to such policy or policies for payment of any amount due hereunder; provided, however, that in the event the Company does not purchase such policy or policies and thereafter maintain such policy or policies in continuous and full force and effect during term hereof, then the Company shall be directly and fully obligated to Executive for such payment.

assistant: Death
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: Crime Lab as a monolithic entity, despite their claim to the contrary. Ante at ¶43. They justify this linkage on the theory that a prosecutor is accountable for any misconduct by a law enforcement agency involved in the investigation. ¶ 54 The legal linchpin of the majority’s decision to hold the MCA strictly liable for the Phoenix Crime Lab’s sins and omissions is Rule 15.1(a)(7), which requires a prosecutor to make available to a defendant “[a]ll material or information which tends to mitigate or negate the defendant’s guilt” that was “within the prosecutor’s possession or control.” I do not dispute that the Phoenix Crime Lab was under the MCA’s control for purposes of its general compliance with Rule 15.1. Carpenter v. Superior Court, 176 Ariz. 486, 490, 862 P.2d 246, 250 (App.1993) (<HOLDING>); Rule 15.1(d) (“The prosecutor’s obligation Options: A. holding that court enforcement of a settlement agreement is not state action for constitutional purposes B. holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity C. holding that state law enforcement agencies fall under prosecutors control for purposes of rule 151 disclosure D. holding that a question about present employment in field of law enforcement did not trigger disclosure of past employment in field of law enforcement E. recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that state law enforcement agencies fall under prosecutors control for purposes of rule 151 disclosure
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: bad-faith claim "each arose from a separate transaction" for res judicata purposes. Heyden v. Safeco Title Ins., No. 89-0902, unpublished slip op. at 6 (Nov. 20, 1989). 3 No appellate court in Wisconsin has expressly decided whether the tort of "bad faith" may be based on an insurance company's failure to pay a claim under a title-insurance policy. Courts elsewhere make no distinction between title insurance and other types of insurance insofar as the insurer's obligation resolve an insured's claim in good faith, see, e.g., White v. Western Title Ins. Co., 710 P.2d 309, 316 (Cal. 1985) ("A covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every insurance contract... including title insurance.") (citations omitted); Lipinski v. The Title Ins. Co., 655 P.2d 970, 976-978 (Mont. 1982) (<HOLDING>); neither do we. 4 The trial court explained: Options: A. holding that insured not liable for bad faith when claim was fairly debatable B. holding title company liable for bad faith C. holding insurer not liable for bad faith when it denied insureds claim based on a good faith dispute regarding the interpretation of a rule D. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort E. holding that although courts have inherent power to dismiss bad faith litigant 707a does not provide basis for dismissal on grounds of bad faith filing

assistant: The best answer is B. holding title company liable for bad faith
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: Such Purchaser has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement, to perform its obligations hereunder and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and has taken all action necessary to authorize the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the performance of its obligations hereunder and thereunder and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby.

assistant: Authorizations
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: automatically discoverable information does exist in their files.”); see also State v. Silva, 2012 ME 120, ¶ 10, 56 A.3d 1230 (concluding that no discovery sanction on the State was necessary given the disclosure of the evidence as soon as it was available; the State’s own inability to use that evidence in preparing for trial; the probable inadmissibility of the evidence; and the possibility that the evidence inculpated, rather than exculpated, the defendant). [¶ 11] Next, we review de novo Carr’s contention that the court denied Juror # 75 his equal protection right to sit on a jury by making him an alternate given his inability to deliberate past 5:08 p.m. for religious reasons. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Me. Const. art. I, § 6-A; State v. Poole, 2012 ME 92, ¶¶ 5, 8, 46 A.3d 1129 (<HOLDING>). Assuming, without deciding, that Carr has Options: A. holding that to assert a viable equal protection claim plaintiffs must first make a threshold showing that they were differently treated from others who were similarly situated to them B. holding equal protection under the federal constitution applies to similarly situated persons C. holding that the equal protection clause is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike D. holding members of two distinct pension plans were not similarly situated for equal protection analysis E. holding that an equal protection violation may occur when similarly situated persons are not treated equally under the law quotation marks omitted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an equal protection violation may occur when similarly situated persons are not treated equally under the law 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: document in order to obtain a firearm. On March 11, 1994, Neff pleaded guilty to count one of the indictment which charged that on April 23, 1992, he knowingly and willfully made a false written statement in connection with the acquisition of a firearm from a licensed dealer. Under United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or the “Guidelines”) § 2K2.1(a)(4), the base offense level for a defendant convicted of a firearms violation, who also had prior felony conviction for a “crime of violence,” is 20. The Court determined that Neff’s 1989 attempted burglary conviction, for entering the home of his estranged wife was sufficient to constitute a “crime of violence.” Neff was then granted a three point reducti st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 979, 110 S.Ct. 508, 107 L.Ed.2d 510 (1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Di-Pasquale, 859 F.2d 9, 10, Options: A. recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel B. holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate C. holding that to the extent defendants claim is one of ineffective assistance of counsel it is not cognizable on direct appeal and rule 2915 is the exclusive procedure by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be advanced D. holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record E. holding that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel waives attorneyclient privilege

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel
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 acknowledges and agrees that he has received all wages and benefits to which he is entitled as a result of his employment with Sonabank through the date of execution of this Agreement. Other than the payments set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree that the Sonabank owes no additional amounts to Executive for wages, back pay, severance pay, bonuses, damages, accrued vacation, benefits, insurance, sick leave, other leave, or any other reason as a result of his employment with Sonabank through the date of execution of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: denial of a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration de novo. Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc. v. Bollman, 505 F.3d 498, 501-02 (6th Cir.2007). Under the Federal Arbitration Act, arbitration clauses in commercial contracts “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. “[Qjuestions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)); see also Mazera v. Varsity Ford Mgmt. Servs., 565 F.3d 997, 1001 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). However, “a court may order arbitration of a Options: A. recognizing strong preference that children live in their own homes with their own families B. recognizing rule 403s strong presumption in favor of admissibility C. recognizing that a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigants claims on the merits with the policy in favor of finality D. recognizing a strong policy preference in favor of arbitration E. holding that where the issue is one of arbitrability the federal presumption in favor of arbitration shifts to favor a court determination

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing a strong policy preference in favor of arbitration
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you also agree that you will only obtain trading items from other account holders and through means provided by us , and not from or through any third-party platform , exchange , broker , or other mechanism , unless expressly authorized .

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: Except as set forth on Schedule 5.06 , there are no actions, suits, proceedings, claims or disputes pending or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened or contemplated, at law, in equity, in arbitration or before any Governmental Authority, by or against Ashland or any of its Subsidiaries or against any of their properties or revenues that (a) purport to affect or pertain to this Agreement, any other Loan Document or the consummation of the Transactions, or (b) either individually or in the aggregate, if determined adversely, would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This AGREEMENT shall be construed, interpreted, and applied in accordance with the laws of the State of Missouri. Any action to enforce the provisions of the AGREEMENT shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue in the State of Missouri. LICENSEE irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of such courts in any such action or proceeding. LICENSEE further irrevocably and unconditionally waives any objection to the laying of venue of any suit, action or proceeding in such courts and irrevocably waives and agrees not to plead or claim in any court that such suit, action or proceeding brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.

assistant: Venues
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: requires. Appellees nevertheless invoke the broad purposes and legislative history of the Civil War statute. We think that is not helpful because, as the Supreme Court has said, Congress’ primary concern at the time — admittedly not its exclusive one— was to put an end to “frauds perpetrated by large [military] contractors during the' Civil War.” United States v. Bornstein, 423 U.S. 303, 309, 96 S.Ct. 523, 46 L.Ed.2d 514 (1976); see United States ex rel. Graber v. City of New York, 8 F.Supp.2d 343, 352 (S.D.N.Y.1998). Appellees point to the Supreme Court’s statement that Congress sought to “reach all types of fraud, without qualification, that might result in financial loss to the Government.” United States v. Neifert-White Co., 390 U.S. 228, 232, 88 S.Ct. 959, 19 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1968) (<HOLDING>). But we think that description is too general Options: A. holding the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract B. holding that the term claim was not limited to claims submitted for payments due and owing from the government but included claims for favorable action by the government upon applications for loans C. holding where 1 the government provided the defendant with all the necessary drugmaking materials 2 the government provided instructions on how to make the drugs and 3 the defendant sought out the materials and help from the undercover government agents the case set the outer limits to which the government may go in the quest to ferret out and prosecute crimes but the governments conduct did not rise to the level of a due process violation D. holding that amtrak is an agency of the government for purposes of the constitutional obligations of government E. holding that the alien was entitled to performance by the government of its promise that the government would not oppose any of his motions for relief from deportation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the term claim was not limited to claims submitted for payments due and owing from the government but included claims for favorable action by the government upon applications for loans
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: is devoted to contesting that Plaintiffs statements on the first day of the Harvard program fall within the ambit of the First Amendment. See Def. Hall Mot. at 14-15. However, even assuming that Plaintiffs statements at the Harvard program were not protected conduct, Plaintiffs other alleged actions—filing a lawsuit contending that government officials violated state law and criticizing one of those officials in the media—clearly are protected. See Fritz v. Charter Twp. of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 723 (6th Cir.2010) (comments in press protected activity); Eckerman v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety, 636 F.3d 202, 208 (6th Cir.2010) (“The filing of a lawsuit to redress grievances is clearly protected activity under the First Amendment.”); Lowery v. Euverard, 497 F.3d 584, 587-588 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Hall does not suggest otherwise. See Def. Options: A. recognizing first amendment retaliation right B. recognizing that the first amendment encompasses criticism of government officials C. recognizing criticisms of public officials is at core of speech protected by first amendment D. holding that criticism of the defendants failure to express remorse penalized his assertion of fifth amendment rights E. recognizing that the first amendment forbids government officials to discharge public employees for not being supporters of the political party in power

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that the first amendment encompasses criticism of government officials
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 Bank may at any time pledge or assign a security interest in all or any portion of its rights under this Agreement to secure its obligations, including any pledge or assignment to secure obligations to a Federal Reserve Bank; provided that no such pledge or assignment shall release the Bank from any of its obligations hereunder or substitute any such pledgee or assignee for the Bank as a party hereto.

assistant: Successors
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: those at issue here, together with wages, remunerate employees for services rendered. — U.S. at -,---, 126 S.Ct. at 2109, 2111-2112. If the contributions at issue are in respect of employees’ services that were rendered prepetition, as here, under the plain meaning of Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(A) and the rationale of the foregoing decisions, the claim for such contributions cannot be accorded priority status under Bankruptcy Code sections 503(b)(1)(A) and 507(a)(1). McFarlin’s, 789 F.2d at 101-102. All of the authorities cited by the Trustees for a contrary reading of sections 503(b) and 507(a) are from courts outside the Second Circuit or construe a different section of the Bankruptcy Code, section 507(a)(4). See, e.g., In re Braniff, Inc., 218 B.R. 628, 631 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1998) (<HOLDING>); accord, Ivey v. Great West Life & Annuity Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage B. holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage C. holding that the employer created an erisa plan when it 1 paid for the employees insurance 2 contracted with the insurance company for coverage and eligibility requirements and 3 collected and remitted the employees dependents premiums D. holding that under bankruptcy code section 507a4 the services were an insurers provision of health insurance coverage for employees during the 180day period immediately before the petition date rather than the earlier labor by the employees on which such coverage was based E. holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that under bankruptcy code section 507a4 the services were an insurers provision of health insurance coverage for employees during the 180day period immediately before the petition date rather than the earlier labor by the employees on which such coverage was based
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: It has used the proceeds of the Term Loans solely as permitted in Section 6.18 . It and its Subsidiaries are not engaged principally, or as one of its or their important activities, in the business of extending credit for the purpose, whether immediate, incidental or ultimate, of buying or carrying margin stock (within the meaning of Regulation T, U or X of the Board).

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree to our data practices , including the collection , use , processing , and sharing of your information as described in our privacy policy , as well as the transfer and processing of your information to the united states and other countries globally where we have or use facilities , service providers , or partners , regardless of where you use our services .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the member who created the netflix account and whose payment method is charged ( the `` account owner '' ) has access and control over the netflix account and the netflix ready devices that are used to access our service .

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: Except as to matters preempted by ERISA or other laws of the United States of America, this Agreement shall be interpreted solely pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, exclusive of its conflicts of laws principles. Each of the Parties hereto irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of New York County, State of New York, for the purposes of any suit, action, or other proceeding arising out of this Agreement or any transaction contemplated hereby.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Petitioner Kesar Singh, a native of India, petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the order of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. 1. We assume but need not decide that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence. The IJ found, in the alternative, that even if Petitioner were credible, he could relocate safely in the Gujarat province of India. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). The IJ’s Options: A. holding that to establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution an applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable B. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution C. holding that absent past persecution an alien can demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on a wellfounded fear of future persecution by demonstrating that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable D. holding the critical question is whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a wellfounded fear of future persecution E. holding that asylum may be denied to an applicant who has otherwise demonstrated a wellfounded fear of future persecution if the evidence shows that internal relocation is a reasonable option in all the circumstances

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that asylum may be denied to an applicant who has otherwise demonstrated a wellfounded fear of future persecution if the evidence shows that internal relocation is a reasonable option in all the circumstances
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: there is ample evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that, in the words of the Reeves Court, Sears’s “asserted justification is false.” Id. Indeed, the fact that Sears has offered different justifications at different times for its failure to hire Santana is, in and of itself, probative of pretext. See, e.g., Dominguez-Cruz v. Suttle Caribe, Inc., 202 F.3d 424, 432 (1st Cir.2000) (“[Wlhen a company, at different times, gives different and arguably inconsistent explanations, a jury may infer that the articulated reasons are pretextual.”); Thurman v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 90 F.3d 1160, 1167 (6th Cir.1996) (“An employer’s changing rationale for making an adverse employment decision can be evidence of pretext.”); EEOC v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 44 F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a factfinder could infer from the Options: A. holding that based upon discrepancies in defendants articulated basis for discrimination reasonable juror could infer that these were pretextual and developed over time to counter evidence suggesting discrimination B. holding that a court must allow the defendant to ask in voir dire whether a potential juror would automatically impose the death penalty and suggesting that such a juror should be disqualified for cause C. holding that a reasonable juror could not infer discrimination based on a supervisors comments that the company needed to get rid of its old fart pilots D. holding that a reasonable juror could infer that the shifting and inconsistent explanations given by the employer at trial were pretextual developed over time to counter the evidence suggesting discrimination E. holding that the conflicting explanations given by defendants agents for the plaintiffs termination were also sufficient to raise a reasonable inference that defendants proffered reasons for the termination were pretextual the inconsistent testimony regarding the motivating reasons for plaintiffs termination cast doubts on the asserted nondiscriminatory legitimate reasons and may alone be sufficient to preclude summary judgment on plaintiffs claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a reasonable juror could infer that the shifting and inconsistent explanations given by the employer at trial were pretextual developed over time to counter the evidence suggesting discrimination
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 a kilogram of heroin in the eight years between 2000 and 2008 appears to have ranged from $60,000 to roughly $100,000. See United States v. Aina-Marshall, 336 F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir.2003); United States v. Azubike, 564 F.3d 59, 61 (1st Cir.2009). We assume that district judges in this circuit, who handle large numbers of wholesale-quantity drug cases each year, are familiar with these prices and require no further evidence unless the point is challenged. In short, because Nino admitted trafficking in a quantity of heroin with a wholesale value at least in the high six figures, that admission by itself provided a sufficient factual basis to support a preponderance finding that the proceeds realized by the conspiracy were at least $100,000. See United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d at 48 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Benevento, 836 F.2d Options: A. holding that it may not B. holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture C. holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court D. holding that forfeiture calculation is not exact science and that district court may make reasonable extrapolations from evidence E. holding that fact finder may draw reasonable inferences from evidence and choose which inference is most reasonable

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that forfeiture calculation is not exact science and that district court may make reasonable extrapolations from 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “continued to assure me that my case was being taken care of and that I would not be at risk of deportation.” This statement is corroborated: although Burns continued to represent Petitioner as the motion to reopen filing deadline approached, Burns did not file any motion or application on Petitioner’s behalf until Petitioner was ordered to surrender on January 7, 2003; on that date, Burns filed an Application to Stay Deportation, representing that a motion to reopen on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds and marital status would be forthcoming. That Burns filed such an application at the eleventh hour rather than within the ninety day time limit (of which he was well aware) corroborates Petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance. Cf. Rodriguez-Lariz, 282 F.3d at 1226 (<HOLDING>); Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882 (2d Cir.1994) Options: A. holding that counsels total failure to conduct pretrial discovery constituted ineffective assistance B. holding that the merits of petitioners ineffective assistance claim were immaterial as counsels shortcomings could not account for petitioners failure to timely file his second motion to reopen C. holding that although we had previously held that an attorneys failure to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of a conviction was not ineffective assistance actively misleading the client concerning these consequences was ineffective assistance D. holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel E. holding that attorneys failure to timely file application for suspension of deportation despite contrary representations to client constituted ineffective assistance

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that attorneys failure to timely file application for suspension of deportation despite contrary representations to client constituted ineffective assistance
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise defined herein or as the context may otherwise require, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein are defined in Appendix A to this Agreement, which contains rules as to usage that are applicable herein.

assistant: Definitions
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 five-year-old paternity order had not been properly challenged). 2 . We note that the 21-year-old child whom the court ordered to submit to a DNA test \vas not a party below, nor apparently given notice of the proceedings. With paternity not in controversy, the adult child possesses his own legal rights related to the ordered testing, including notice. See § 760.40(2)(a), Fla. Stat. ("DNA analysis may be performed only with the informed consent of the person to be tested, and the results of such DNA analysis, whether held by a public or private entity, are the exclusive property of the person tested, are confidential, and may not be disclosed without the consent of the person tested.”). Cf. Chavez v. J & L Drywall & Travelers Ins. Co., 858 So.2d 1266, 1268-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) Options: A. holding that the substitution of a party acts as a modification discharging the replaced party and substituting the new party with the same rights and liabilities B. holding that the court should look to the actions of the relevant party and determine whether that party fails to insist on its contractual rights or acts inconsistently with such rights C. holding that a district court has the power to raise the aedpa limitations period sua sponte because the defense implicates values beyond the interests of the parties D. recognizing a difference between a partners economic rights and voting rights with the former typically being freely assignable to a third party E. recognizing that a compelled medical examination implicates the rights of the party being examined

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that a compelled medical examination implicates the rights of the party being examined
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: As of the Effective Date, neither Holdings nor any other Loan Party has any Subsidiaries other than those specifically disclosed in Schedule 5.11, and all of the outstanding Equity Interests in the Borrower and the Subsidiaries (in each case, to the extent constituting Collateral) have been validly issued and are fully paid and (if applicable) nonassessable, and all Equity Interests owned by Holdings or any other Loan Party are owned free and clear of all security interests of any person except (i) those created under the Collateral Documents, under the ABL Facility Documentation (which Liens shall be subject to the Intercreditor Agreement) or under the First Lien Facility Documentation (which Liens shall be subject to the Intercreditor Agreement and the First Lien/Second Lien Intercreditor Agreement) and (ii) any other Lien that is permitted under Section 9.1 . As of the Effective Date, Schedule 5.11 (a) sets forth the name and jurisdiction of each Subsidiary, (b) sets forth the ownership interest of Holdings, the Borrower and any other Subsidiary in each Subsidiary, including the percentage of such ownership and (c) identifies each Subsidiary the Equity Interests of which are required to be pledged on the Effective Date pursuant to the Collateral and Guarantee Requirement.

assistant: Subsidiaries