flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To request the issuance of a Letter of Credit (or the amendment, renewal or extension of an outstanding Letter of Credit), the applicable Borrower shall telecopy (or transmit by electronic communication, if arrangements for doing so have been approved by the Issuing Bank) to the Issuing Bank and the Administrative Agent (reasonably in advance of the requested date of issuance, amendment, renewal or extension) a notice requesting the issuance of a Letter of Credit, or identifying the Letter of Credit to be amended, renewed or extended, and specifying the date of issuance, amendment, renewal or extension (which shall be a Business Day), the date on which such Letter of Credit is to expire (which shall comply with paragraph (c) of this Section 2.05 ), the amount of such Letter of Credit, the name and address of the beneficiary thereof and such other information as shall be necessary to prepare, amend, renew or extend such Letter of Credit. If requested by the Issuing Bank, the applicable Borrower also shall submit a letter of credit application on the Issuing Bank’s standard form in connection with any request for a Letter of Credit (but any default or breach under such application and not hereunder shall not give rise to a Default or Event of Default hereunder). A Letter of Credit shall be issued, amended, renewed or extended only if (and upon issuance, amendment, renewal or extension of each Letter of Credit the applicable Borrower shall be deemed to represent and warrant that), after giving effect to such issuance, amendment, renewal or extension (i) the Dollar Equivalent of the LC Exposure shall not exceed $ 250,000,000 150,000,000 , (ii) the Dollar Equivalent of the total Revolving Exposures shall not exceed the total Revolving Commitments, (iii) the USD Only Revolving Exposures exceeding the USD Only Revolving Commitment, (iv) the USD/Multicurrency Revolving Exposures exceeding the USD/ Multicurrency Revolving Commitment and (v) to the extent a Letter of Credit has been requested to be issued, amended, renewed or extended in an Alternative Currency, the Dollar Equivalent of the aggregate Multicurrency Revolving Exposure shall not exceed the Multicurrency Revolving Sublimit.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Plaintiff raises several other objections to the manner in which the ALJ and Appeals Council reached their decisions. First, he asserts that the ALJ improperly failed to consider Plaintiffs subjective complaints of pain. The Second Circuit has held that “the subjective element of pain is an important factor to be considered in determining disability.” Mimms v. Heckler (2d Cir.1984) 750 F.2d 180, 185. However, the Second Circuit has also held that “[t]he ALJ has discretion to evaluate the credibility of a claimant and to arrive at an independent judgment, in light of medical findings and other evidence, re garding the true extent of the pain alleged by the claimant.” Marcus v. Califano (2d Cir.1979) 615 F.2d 23, 27. See also Jordan v. Barnhart (2d Cir.2002) 29 Fed.Appx. 790, 794 (<HOLDING>). “If the Secretaries findings are supported by Options: A. holding that the alj properly relied on medical evidence undermining claimants subjective assessment of limitations B. holding the alj may discredit complaints of claimant where inconsistencies appear in record C. holding that an alj may consider a claimants household activities in evaluating complaints of disabling pain D. holding that alj properly evaluated credibility where he cited specific instances where claimants complaints about pain and other subjective symptoms were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence of record E. holding that an alj is entitled to make a credibility determination regarding the claimants subjective complaints after specifically addressing these complaints and reviewing the medical evidence in the record

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an alj is entitled to make a credibility determination regarding the claimants subjective complaints after specifically addressing these complaints and reviewing the medical evidence in the record
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 Board of Directors may amend the terms of this Agreement prospectively or retroactively at any time, but no such amendment shall impair the rights of the Grantee hereunder without the Grantee's consent.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be amended by the independent directors of the Board of the Company (as defined in Article III, Section 11 of the By-Laws) and by the Stockholders only by an instrument in writing signed on behalf of each of the parties hereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 583) (1998). 8 (Punctuation omitted.) Id. at 107 (1). 9 See, e.g., Dixie Group, Inc. v. Shaw Indus. Group, 303 Ga.App. 459, 467-468 (4) (693 SE2d 888) (2010) (collecting cases). 10 We note that there also is a failure of evidence that Salter’s knew or should have known that the switch was defective. 11 See Hudgins v. Bacon, 171 Ga.App. 856, 861(3) (321 SE2d 359) (1984) (“The law imposes upon building contractors and others performing skilled services the obligation to exercise a reasonable degree of care, skill, and ability, which is generally taken and considered to be such a degree of care and skill as, under similar conditions and like surrounding circumstances, is ordinarily employed by others of the same profession.”) (punctuation omitted). 12 Cf. Dupree, 199 Ga. App. at 143 (2) (<HOLDING>). 13 See R & R Insulation Svcs., 307 Ga.App. at Options: A. holding that the defendant complied with the requirements of 1681ea because it obtained a blanket certification and because the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to prove that the defendant knew or should have had reason to know that the subscriber would access the report for an impermissible purpose B. holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger C. holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense D. holding that liability for a manufacturer follows only if it knew or should have known of the inherent dangerousness of the product and failed to accompany it with the quantum of warning which would be calculated to adequately guard against the inherent danger E. holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger
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: or extreme hardship. 1. Prudential Has the Right to Finality of the Litigation The Court must consider the potential impact that late opt-outs would have on the Settlement. Prudential maintains that to ensure the finality the Settlement was intended to achieve, it is necessary for the Court to enforce the opt-out deadline. See In re Gypsum Antitrust Cases, 565 F.2d 1123, 1127-28 (9th Cir.1977) (emphasizing that in managing a large class settlement consisting of nearly one-half million people, ‘“a cutoff date [for claims] is essential and at some point the matter must be terminated’ ”) (citation omitted). The impetus for defendants to settle class action suits is finality of the litigation. See, e.g., O’Brien v. Nat’l Property Analysts Partners, 739 F.Supp. 896, 900 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, to grant leave for an extension of Options: A. holding that courts should consider the merits of the litigants claims the nature of the factual issues the litigants ability to present his claims and the complexity of the legal issues B. recognizing a strong policy preference in favor of arbitration 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. holding that where the issue is one of arbitrability the federal presumption in favor of arbitration shifts to favor a court determination E. recognizing policy of this court to favor complete coverage when interpreting insurance contracts

assistant: The best answer is 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
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: Rule 82 award, Citibank may have been locked in to the superior court litigation. But if Hudson had raised the UTPA to assert an affirmative counterclaim of some kind, Citibank would have had every right under the arbitration provision to demand arbitration of that counterclaim, regardless of its connection to the Rule 82 claim. Under the dissent's analysis, Hudson avoids the plain language of the arbitration provision to which she agreed simply by defaulting in the first lawsuit and waiting to assert her counterclaim in a separate lawsuit. That cannot be the correct result. 39 . See Midwest Window Sys., Inc., 630 F.2d at 537; PPG Indus., Inc. v. Webster Auto Parts, Inc., 128 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Gutor Int'l AG v. Raymond Packer Co., 493 F.2d 938, 946 (1st Cir. 1974) (<HOLDING>); G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. TCMS, Inc., No. Options: A. holding plaintiff must be closely related to victim B. holding under code of criminal procedure record refers to all matters developed at trial C. holding that all sentencing errors must be preserved D. holding that all related matters must be arbitrated E. holding that related provisions should be read together

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that all related matters must be arbitrated
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: 2084, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985) (”[F]ar more than the simple omission of the appropriate phrase ... is necessary to justify dispensing with an intent requirement.” (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 438, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978)) (internal quotation mark omitted)); see also Carter v. United States, 530 191, 118 S.Ct. 1939, 141 L.Ed.2d 197 (1998) ("As a general matter, when used in the criminal context, a 'willful' act is one undertaken with a 'bad purpose.' In other words, in order to establish a 'willful' violation of a statute, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137, 142 n. 10, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202, Options: A. holding that to establish that a defendant willfully violated the antislructuring law the government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful and stating that specific intent to commit the crimes might be negated by eg proof that defendant relied in good faith on advice of counsel internal quotation marks omitted B. holding that the challenged conduct or statement must be directed at the familial relationship with knowledge that the statements or conduct will adversely affect that relationship internal quotation marks omitted C. holding that in a prosecution for willfully violating federal law against structuring financial transactions to evade bank reporting requirements the government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful D. holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law E. holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that to establish that a defendant willfully violated the antislructuring law the government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful and stating that specific intent to commit the crimes might be negated by eg proof that defendant relied in good faith on advice of counsel internal quotation marks omitted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: original). Here, the claim is based on Chase’s failure to pay flood insurance premiums from the escrow account. Further, plaintiff alleges that defendant breached a duty that was owed to her specifically, not a general duty owed to the public. See Harrison v. Gore, 27,254 (La.App. 2 Cir.8/23/95); 660 So.2d 563, 568 (“The classical distinction between ‘damages ex contractu’ and ‘damages ex delicto’ is that the former flow from the breach of a special obligation contractually assumed by the obligor, whereas the latter flow from the violation of a general duty owed to all persons.”). The Court, therefore, finds that plaintiffs detrimental reliance claim sounds in contract and is subject to a ten-year prescriptive period. See Stokes v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 894 F.2d 764, 770 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, plaintiffs claim has not Options: A. holding in the context of a non 212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance B. holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense C. holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance D. holding detrimental reliance claim was subject to tenyear prescriptive period E. holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations

assistant: The best answer is D. holding detrimental reliance claim was subject to tenyear prescriptive period
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: U.S. Const, amend. V; Del. Const, art. I, § 8. 8 . 355 U.S. 184, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957). 9 . Green, 355 U.S. at 187-88, 78 S.Ct. 221. 10 . Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689, 69 S.Ct. 834, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949). 11 . Id. at 688-89, 69 S.Ct. 834. 12 . Earnest v. Dorsey, 87 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir.1996), citing United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 607, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976) and Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 505, 98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978). 13 . Id., citing Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 679, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). 14 . Bailey v. State, 521 A.2d 1069, 1075 (Del.1987), citing Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416, (1982). See also, United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978) (<HOLDING>) Id. at 93, 98 S.Ct. 2187. 15 . Bailey v. Options: A. holding that it was fundamental error for a sentencing court to consider a criminal defendants protestations of innocence because due process guarantees an individual the right to maintain innocence even when faced with evidence of overwhelming guilt B. holding a consequence instruction is not necessary because the consequences of the verdict have no bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant C. holding that a defendants motion for a mistrial is deemed to be a waiver of his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact D. holding that a defendant is barred from contending on appeal that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial motion when he acquiesced in the courts decision to give curative instructions and did not then renew his own motion for mistrial or join in his codefendants renewal of the motion E. holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a defendants motion for a mistrial is deemed to be a waiver of his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact
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 date hereof, the authorized capital stock of the Company consists of: (i) 600,000,000 shares of Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of which 14,163,763 shares are issued and outstanding, and for which 10,456,054 shares are issuable for derivative securities outstanding and approximately 146,000 shares are intended to settle outstanding pre-2010 unsecured debt obligations; and (ii) 5,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of which no shares are issued and outstanding; All of such outstanding shares of capital stock are, or upon issuance will be, duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable. No shares of capital stock of the Company are subject to preemptive rights or any other similar rights of the shareholders of the Company or any liens or encumbrances imposed through the actions or failure to act of the Company. As of the effective date of this Agreement, except for those disclosed in the Company’s filed reports with the SEC and options that may be issued to executives of the Company (i) there are no other outstanding options, warrants, scrip, rights to subscribe for, puts, calls, rights of first refusal, agreements, understandings, claims or other commitments or rights of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities or rights convertible into or exchangeable for any shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or, with the exception of pending obligations to issue incentive options to executive officers of the Company pursuant to employment contracts, no arrangements by which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is or may become bound to issue additional shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries that are not mentioned here, (ii) there are no agreements or arrangements under which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is obligated to register the sale of any of its or their securities under the 1933 Act and (iii) there are no anti-dilution or price adjustment provisions contained in any security issued by the Company (or in any agreement providing rights to security holders) that will be triggered by the issuance of the Offered Units that are not contained here. The Company has made available to the Purchaser true and correct copies of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation as in effect on the date hereof (“Certificate of Incorporation”), and the Company’s By-laws, as in effect on the date hereof (the “By-laws”).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to this case. The EEOC does not allege that Ameritech negotiated for the thirty-day limit on disciplinary action in order to avoid Title VII obligations, nor is there any evidence in the record to that effect. Furthermore, this is not a situation where Ameritech is seeking to use its obligations under the collective bargaining agreement as an affirmative defense precluding liability under Title VII. Rather, Ameritech seeks only to introduce evidence as to its collective bargaining agreement, and its concern over the possible outcome of arbitration, to demonstrate that it did not act with the state of mind necessary for an award of punitive damages and to show that its response to Amos’s misconduct was reasonable. See Deneen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 431 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In this context, the district court erred in Options: A. holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union B. holding that an employer cannot enter into an individual contract if it would result in a diminution of the employers obligations in matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement C. holding a court may not award punitive damages D. holding that proof of discrimination offered by the plaintiff was insufficient to support a punitive damages award in light of the employers belief that its actions were required by a collective bargaining agreement E. holding that a debtorinpossession could reject a collective bargaining agreement

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that proof of discrimination offered by the plaintiff was insufficient to support a punitive damages award in light of the employers belief that its actions were required by a collective bargaining agreement
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: whatsoever for the purpose of child molestation or indecent acts.”); OCGA § 16-12-1 (b) (“A person commits the offense of contributing to the delinquency or dependency of a minor or causing a child to he a child in need of services when such person . . . [kjnowingly and willfully encourages, causes, abets, connives, or aids a minor in committing a delinquent act.. . .”). 3 Johnson v. State, 328 Ga. App. 702, 706 (2) (760 SE2d 682) (2014) (punctuation omitted); accord Duggan v. State, 285 Ga. 363, 366 (2) (677 SE2d 92) (2009). 4 Johnson, 328 Ga. App. at 706 (2) (punctuation omitted); accord Duggan, 285 Ga. at 366 (2). 5 Johnson, 328 Ga. App. at 706 (2) (punctuation omitted); accord Moon v. State, 288 Ga. 508, 511 (4) (705 SE2d 649) (2011). 6 See, e.g., Johnson, 328 Ga. App. at 706 (2) (<HOLDING>). 7 Id. (punctuation omitted); accord Baugh v. Options: A. holding that prior consistent statements are admissible under rule 801d1b only if offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive B. recognizing prior consistent statements are considered nonhearsay if the following conditions are met the person who made the prior consistent statement testifies at trial and is subject to crossexamination concerning that statement and the statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge of improper influence motive or recent fabrication citing rodriguez v state 609 so2d 493 499 fla1992 C. holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible in part because defense counsel implied during opening statement that witness had fabricated her testimony D. holding that trial court erred in allowing lawenforcement officers testimony as to victims prior consistent statement when there was no affirmative charge of recent fabrication and the state elicited the testimony during its direct examination of the witness E. holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony from two witnesses whose testimony was brief and consistent with the victims testimony did not constitute drumbeat repetition of the victims statements

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that trial court erred in allowing lawenforcement officers testimony as to victims prior consistent statement when there was no affirmative charge of recent fabrication and the state elicited the testimony during its direct examination of the 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: in those cases that also could corroborate the accomplice testimony. While there was additional corroborating evidence in both cases, the court’s language does not suggest that a less-than-positive identification requires such additional evidence, and appellant has been unable to direct us to any authority so holding. This cause is also distinguishable from other situations in which courts of appeals have found insufficient corroboration of juvenile accomplice testimony. See In re J.R.R., 689 S.W.2d 516, 519 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth) (reversing for insufficient corroboration where accomplice witness “was the only witness who in any way connected appellant to the crime”), modified, 696 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.1985); In re A.D.L.C., 598 S.W.2d 383, 385-86 (Tex.Civ.App.— Amarillo 1980, no writ) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, Green’s testimony, while not a Options: A. holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence B. holding insufficient corroboration where nonaccomplice evidence merely placed juvenile in same city and no evidence placed youth at scene of crime C. holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative D. holding that direct evidence of defendants dna found at the scene was direct evidence merely of a circumstance that suggested his participation in the burglary and theft but was not direct evidence of his participation in the burglary E. holding evidence legally and factually sufficient under sections d and e to terminate mothers parental rights based in part on evidence that mother placed children with physically abusive father

assistant: The best answer is B. holding insufficient corroboration where nonaccomplice evidence merely placed juvenile in same city and no evidence placed youth at scene of crime
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: linked’ to the order of removal, it is prohibited by section 1252(a)(5).” Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 623 (9th Cir.2012). Meanwhile, a § 2241 petition is not subject to § 1252(a)(5)’s jurisdictional bar if it is “independent” of the removal order. See Nnadika v. Att’y Gen., 484 F.3d 626, 632 (3d Cir.2007). Tonfaek claims that his § 2241 petition is independent of his removal order, but we do not agree. Critically, Tonfaek argues not just that the specific Cameroonian travel documents are invalid, but that Cameroon is not a proper country of removal. This issue is encompassed in the removal order — the IJ is obligated to designate a country of removal as part of the removal proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12(d); see also In re I-S- & C-S-24 I. & N. Dec. 432, 433-34 (BIA 2008) (<HOLDING>). The fact that the IJ here may have neglected Options: A. holding that because the ij denied an asylum application as untimely we lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to review the final order of removal as it pertained to the asylum claim B. holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct C. holding that term order of removal does not include aliens ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning attorneys actions taken after order of removal becomes final D. holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand E. holding that when an ij issues a decision granting an aliens application for withholding of removal without a grant of asylum the decision must include an explicit order of removal designating a country of removal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that when an ij issues a decision granting an aliens application for withholding of removal without a grant of asylum the decision must include an explicit order of removal designating a country of removal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Casey's own misstatements in her self-reporting. 22 . AS 47.10.088(a)(3). 23 . AS 47.10.086(a). 24 . Id. 25 . Id. 26 . AS 47.10.0860). 27 . Audrey H. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 188 P.3d 668, 678 (Alaska 2008) 28 . Sean B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 251 P.3d 330, 338 (Alaska 2011) (citing Jeff A.C., Jr. v. State, 117 P.3d 697, 706 (Alaska 2005)). 29 . Sherman B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 290 P.3d 421, 432 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Sean B., 251 P.3d at 338) (internal quotation marks omitted). 30 . Erica A. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 66 P.3d 1, 7 (Alaska 2003). 31 . See Roland L. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 206 P.3d 453, 456 (Alaska 2009) (<HOLDING>); Jon S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Options: A. holding that even under the higher active efforts burden required in indian child welfare act icwa cases the fact that ocs failed to make efforts during three of the 26 months it was involved in the case was not determinative B. holding that the types of remedial and rehabilitative services to be required under icwa depend on the facts of the case C. holding the evidence was sufficient to support termination under subsection n when after release from prison the defendant was advised of visitation but only visited with his children twice and made no further efforts to be involved with them and a case worker testified that all reasonable efforts were made to return the children to the parents D. holding that dhr properly ended reunification efforts after eight months when previous reunification efforts had failed and the record indicated that further efforts would be unavailing E. holding that ocs made active efforts as required by icwa even where ocss efforts temporarily declined when father was incarcerated

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that even under the higher active efforts burden required in indian child welfare act icwa cases the fact that ocs failed to make efforts during three of the 26 months it was involved in the case was not determinative
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: Sellers shall maintain existing insurance or “tail” insurance, in form and substance reasonably acceptable to Buyer (“ Seller Insurance ”), to insure against liabilities in connection with the development, business or operation of the Sellers and/or the Purchased Assets. The Seller Insurance coverage shall be retroactive such that it covers all periods prior to the Closing Date, as applicable, and shall remain in effect for at least three years from the Closing Date. The minimum coverage of the Seller Insurance shall be One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) in the aggregate.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to have less capacity than adults to understand their rights and privileges. See, e.g., Colo. Const, art. VII, § 1 (person under eighteen has no right to vote); § 13-22-101, C.R.S.2000 (person under eighteen does not have competence to enter into contracts, to manage estates, to sue and be sued, or to make decisions regarding his or her own body, such as donating blood or organs); § 14-2-106(l)(a)(I), C.R.S.2000 (person under eighteen needs to obtain parental consent before receiving marriage license); § 19-2-511(1), (juveniles subjected to custodial interrogation required to have parent or guardian present before waiving right to counsel); C.R.J.P. 3(a) (advisement for juveniles entering plea requires presence of a parent or guardian at initial appearance); Nicholas, 973 P.2d at 1219 (<HOLDING>). In acknowledging this special need to protect Options: A. recognizing that inmates have no freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance B. holding that a prisoner has no first amendment right to provide legal assistance to other inmates and that therefore prison officials did not violate the prisoners constitutional rights when they intercepted a letter containing legal advice that he sent to another prisoner C. holding that where parents have previously stipulated that the children should be adjudicated as being in need of aid ocs still has the burden of proving in the subsequent termination of parental rights proceeding by clear and convincing evidence that the children were in need of aid D. recognizing special circumstances exception E. recognizing that children have less capacity than adults to understand legal rights and therefore need special assistance

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that children have less capacity than adults to understand legal rights and therefore need special 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: This Amendment will become effective upon (a) its execution by the Parties, (b) evidence, as reasonably requested by Purchaser, of the due execution and delivery of this Amendment by the Companies and the power and authority of the Companies to enter into this Amendment, and (c) receipt by Purchaser, in immediately available funds, of (i) One Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($140,000) as a restructuring fee, and (ii) an amount equal to all other reasonable fees and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expenses) incurred by Purchaser in connection with the preparation, negotiation and execution of this Amendment.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of any Dispute, the Parties will first attempt to resolve such Dispute by referring it to the senior management of the Parties and Transporter (if applicable) for resolution. If such Dispute has not been resolved within fifteen (15) Days after such referral to the senior management of the Parties and Transporter (if applicable), then any Dispute (other than a Dispute submitted to an Expert under Section 22.2.1) shall be exclusively and definitively resolved through final and binding arbitration, it being the intention of the Parties that this is a broad form arbitration agreement designed to encompass all possible Disputes under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: stressed the expert witness’ thesis that Jamaicans had “taken over” the local drug traffic. Id. The court held that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors’ emotions by arguing that people “just like” the defendants (Jamaican e) are present, courts have found prejudice. See Rodriguez Cortes, 949 F.2d 532. When they are absent, however, courts have often found no prejudice. See United States v. Hernandez, 865 F.2d 925, 927-28 (7th Cir.1989) (reference to “Cuban drug dealers” was prosecutor’s only reference to Cubans and, within context of the entire trial, it was not “so inflammatory as to prejudice the defendant.”). Accord United States v. Phibbs, 999 F.2d 1053, 1079 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied,—U.S.-, 114 S.Ct.- 1071, 127 L.Ed.2d 389 (1994). See also Kirvan, 997 F.2d at 965 (<HOLDING>). The court finds neither factor in this case. Options: A. holding that because the claims were dismissed with prejudice there was a final judgment for purposes of appellate review B. holding regarding sixth amendment prejudice if there is no reasonable possibility that the appellate court would have ruled in his favor there can be no strickland prejudice C. holding that there was no actual prejudice where the defendant has the functional equivalent of the notice required D. holding that there is no prejudice where the racial reference was for purposes of identification E. holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there is no prejudice where the racial reference was for purposes of identification
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 is the intention of the Seller that the transfer and assignment herein contemplated, taken as a whole, constitute a sale of the Receivables from the Seller to the Issuer and that the beneficial interest in and title to the Receivables not be part of the debtor’s estate in the event of the filing of a bankruptcy petition by or against the Seller under any bankruptcy law. Other than (1) the sale by the Seller to the Issuer pursuant to this Agreement and (2) the security interest granted by the Issuer to the Indenture Trustee in the Indenture, no Receivable has been sold, transferred, assigned or pledged by the Seller to any Person other than the Issuer, and no Receivable has been sold, transferred, assigned or pledged by the Issuer to any Person other than the Indenture Trustee, and no provision of a Receivable shall have been waived, except as provided in clause (h) above; immediately prior to the transfer and assignment herein contemplated, the Seller had good and marketable title to each Receivable free and clear of all Liens and rights of any other Person and immediately prior to the pledge of security interest contemplated in the Indenture, the Issuer had good and marketable title to each Receivable free and clear of all Liens and rights of any other Person; immediately upon the transfer and assignment contemplated herein, the Issuer shall have good and marketable title to each Receivable, free and clear of all Liens and rights of any other Person and immediately upon the pledge of the security interest contemplated in the Indenture, the Indenture Trustee will have a valid and continuing security interest in the Receivables; and both the transfer and assignment herein contemplated and the pledge of security interest contemplated by the Indenture have been perfected under the applicable UCC.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Until the earlier of (x) the date Valvoline has obtained in effect such insurance policies as meet the specifications set forth in clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 8.01(d) and (y) the Trigger Date, Ashland Global shall (i) cause the members of the Valvoline Group and their respective employees, officers and directors to continue to be covered as insured parties under Ashland Global Insurance Policies in a manner which is no less favorable than the coverage provided for the Ashland Global Group and (ii) permit the members of the Valvoline Group and their respective employees, officers and directors to submit claims arising from or relating to facts, circumstances, events or matters that occurred prior to the Trigger Date to the extent permitted under such policies; provided that Valvoline shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain, effective as of the Separation Date, insurance policies that meet the specifications set forth in clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 8.01(d). With respect to policies currently procured by Valvoline for the sole benefit of the Valvoline Group (“ Valvoline Insurance Policies ”), Valvoline shall continue to maintain such insurance coverage through the Distribution Date in a manner no less favorable than currently provided. Without limiting any of the rights or obligations of the parties pursuant to Section 8.01, Ashland Global and Valvoline acknowledge that, as of immediately prior to the Trigger Date, Ashland Global intends to take such action as it may deem necessary or desirable to remove the members of the Valvoline Group and their respective employees, officers and directors as insured parties under any policy of insurance issued to any member of the Ashland Global Group by any insurance carrier effective immediately prior to the Trigger Date. Valvoline further acknowledges and agrees that, from and after the Trigger Date, neither Valvoline nor any member of the Valvoline Group shall have any rights to or under such Ashland Global Insurance Policy other than as expressly provided in Section 8.01(b).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: with the said [victim’s] personal liberty____” We have implied that kidnapping is a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(1)(ii) because it involves a “serious potential risk of physical injury to the ... kidnapped person.” United States v. Lonczak, 993 F.2d 180, 182-83 (9th Cir.1993). In an analogous context, we explicitly held that “kidnapping entails a ‘serious potential risk of physical injury’ to the victim, making the offense a ‘violent felony1.... ” United States v. Sherbondy, 865 F.2d 996, 1009 (9th Cir.1988). That holding has been followed by other circuits which have determined that kidnapping is a “crime of violence” because it, by its very nature, involves a substantial risk of physical violence. See United States v. Kaplansky, 42 F.3d 320, 324-25 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Salemi 26 F.3d 1084, 1086 Options: A. holding that the potential for violence against the victim is an inherent aspect of the crime of kidnapping under 18 usc 924 B. holding that kidnapping is a crime of violence which involves a serious potential risk of injury under 18 usc 924 C. holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence D. holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc 16 E. holding that kidnapping is a crime of violence which necessarily involves the threatened use of physical force under 18 usc 924

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the potential for violence against the victim is an inherent aspect of the crime of kidnapping under 18 usc 924
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: Notices and all other communications contemplated by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when personally delivered or when mailed by U.S. registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid. Mailed notices to Employee shall be addressed to Employee at the home address that Employee most recently communicated to the Company in writing. In the case of the Company, mailed notices shall be addressed to its corporate headquarters, and all notices shall be directed to the attention of its Secretary.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: It is the intent that this Option qualify for Incentive Stock Option treatment pursuant to and to the extent permitted by Section 422 of the Code. All provisions hereof are intended and will be construed to have such meanings as are consistent with the Code and Treasury Regulations to allow this Option to so qualify.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: OF THE COURT BECKER, Chief Judge. This bankruptcy appeal requires us to construe 11 U.S.C. § 510(b), which provides for the subordination of any claim for damages “arising from the purchase or sale” of a security of the debtor. The appeal arises out of a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition filed by appellee Telegroup, Inc. Appellants Baroda Hill Investments, Ltd., LeHeron Corporation, Ltd., and Kimble John Winter (“claimants” or “appellants”) are shareholders of Telegroup who filed proofs of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding s 3d 828 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); In re Int’l Wireless Communications Holdings, Options: A. holding that plaims for breach of a merger agreement arise from the purchase or sale of debtors securities B. holding that a claim for breach of a provision in a merger agreement arises from the purchase or sale of the debtors securities C. holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the instrument D. holding that an independent fiduciary duty arises from a brokers purchase and sale of securities E. holding that claims for erisa violations arose from the purchase or sale of debtors securities

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a claim for breach of a provision in a merger agreement arises from the purchase or sale of the debtors securities