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: docket.” Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8009(a)(1). Although neither the First Circuit nor any District of Massachusetts court has issued an opinion directly on point, most other courts in the First Circuit believe that the decision to dismiss bankruptcy appeals for failure to comply with Rule 8009 is discretionary. See, e.g., Balles v. Sturgill, 2009 WL 690079, at *1 (D.N.H.2009) (indicating that but for confusion as to instructions on the docket, appellant’s appeal would have been dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8009); Wiscovitch-Rentas v. Pharm. Processes, 2009 WL 693178, at *1 (D.P.R. 2009) (dismissing appeal for failure to file a brief or request an extension of time to do so within the time allotted by Rule 8009(a)); Rodriguez-Quesada v. U.S. Trustee, 222 B.R. 193, 199 (D.P.R.1998) (<HOLDING>); In re Cumberland Inv. Corp., 133 B.R. 275, Options: A. holding that the failure to file a proper motion to dismiss raising a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute waives the issue on appeal B. holding that the bankruptcy court could not extend a deadline for filing a notice of appeal beyond the 20 day extension period allowed by the bankruptcy rules C. holding that the plaintiffs motion for extension of time to file appeal qualified as a notice of appeal because it met the requirements of rule 4 of the federal rules of appellate procedure D. holding that it is proper to dismiss an appellants appeal for failure to file a brief or request an extension within the time allotted by the bankruptcy rules E. holding that a creditor who had received actual notice of a bankruptcy proceeding through his counsel did not suffer a due process violation because he had notice in time to file a complaint or at least to file a timely motion for an extension of time

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it is proper to dismiss an appellants appeal for failure to file a brief or request an extension within the time allotted by the bankruptcy rules
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and each of its subsidiaries (i) will use commercially reasonable efforts to maintain, or cause to be maintained, all material environmental permits, licenses and other authorizations required by federal, state and local law in order to conduct their businesses as described in the Prospectus, and (ii) shall conduct their businesses, or cause their businesses to be conducted, in substantial compliance with such permits, licenses and authorizations and with applicable environmental laws, except where the failure to maintain or be in compliance with such permits, licenses and authorizations with respect to clauses (i) and/or (ii) could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change.

assistant: Compliance With 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: t 60 (9th Cir.2006) (determining objection to special condition for plethysmograph testing and compelled medication requires the government to show condition is reasonably necessary to promote § 3553(a) goal and for the district court to perform a “thorough inquiry”); United States v. Myers, 426 F.3d 117, 124, 126-27 (2d Cir.2005) (applying abuse of discretion review and holding record failed to support special condition limiting father from visiting son); United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2004) (concluding district court abused its discretion in ruling on defendant’s objection when imposing mandatory medication special condition because it failed to make findings on a medically-informed record); United States v. Warren, 186 F.3d 358, 366-67 (3d Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion For the above reasons, we Options: A. holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss B. holding the trial court must make findings adequate to support a closure C. holding district court must make explicit factual findings or record must contain evidence to support special condition to restrict travel outside united states D. holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record E. holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record

assistant: The best answer is C. holding district court must make explicit factual findings or record must contain evidence to support special condition to restrict travel outside united states
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: presence is established. Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983). However, the issue of control is not established by the fact that the contraband is in plain view unless the accused is an occupant or owner. Id. In the event the accused is a mere visitor in jointly possessed premises, then the State must establish control of contraband in plain view by independent evidence. Taylor v. State, 319 So.2d 114, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). As we stated previously, the State’s evidence established nothing more than that Sundin was a visitor of a resident of room 221. Without independent proof of Sundin’s control over the pipe, the State failed to establish his constructive possession of the cocaine or paraphernalia. See J.S.M. [v. State], 944 So.2d [1143] at 1144-45 [ (2d Cir.2006) ] (<HOLDING>); Wade v. State, 558 So.2d 107, 108 (Fla. 1st Options: A. holding that a hotel occupant who was asked to leave by police officers acting on behalf of hotel management who complained of defendants disorderly behavior was justifiably ejected under state law and no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room B. holding that the state failed to prove that a hotel visitor had control over marijuana found in plain view in a hotel room because the state did not provide any evidence other than the defendants mere proximity to the marijuana C. holding that a 7 excise tax based on the charge to the public for a hotel room applied to the price expedia demands from the consumer for the right to occupy the hotel room and not the price expedia agrees to pay the hotel for the room D. holding that a visitor to a hotel room for purposes of distributing drugs failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room E. holding that a hotel security guard was not liable under 1983 merely because he called police and brought the police to the plaintiffs hotel room

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the state failed to prove that a hotel visitor had control over marijuana found in plain view in a hotel room because the state did not provide any evidence other than the defendants mere proximity to the marijuana
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be binding on, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and both of which taken together shall constitute one agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart by facsimile, portable document format (.pdf), or other electronic means will be deemed to be delivery of an original in all cases. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Prime Lease.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: which would have reported violence at New York City detention facilities. Complt. ¶¶ 19-22. He conclusorily alleges that these prior incidents established a policy or custom of violence against prisoners, and that the Supervisory Defendants were aware of and allowed this policy to continue. Complt. ¶¶ 13-26. Given the passage of time and the installation of a new DOC Commissioner and other supervisory staff between the prior violent incidents and the alleged abuse of Plaintiff, as well as the general failure of Plaintiff to plausibly allege that a policy or custom underlay these acts of violence, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that the violence which harmed him was part of a larger policy or custom at the DOC. See, e.g., Burton v. Lynch, 664 F.Supp.2d 349, 367 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations omitted); Carson v. Options: A. holding that in the first amendment retaliation context there is no bright line to define the outer limits beyond which a temporal relationship is too attenuated to establish a causal relationship so courts judge the permissible inferences that can be drawn from temporal proximity in the context of particular cases quoting gormanbakos v cornell coop extension 252 f3d 545 554 2d cir2001 espinal v goord 558 f3d 119 129 2d cir2009 B. holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation C. holding that in addition to temporal proximity plaintiff must show further evidence supporting a causal connection D. holding that a close temporal proximity between a public employees speech and a defendants actions suggested a causal relationship E. holding that onemonth temporal proximity was sufficient to establish causation and noting that the prima facie burden in this context is not an onerous one

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that in the first amendment retaliation context there is no bright line to define the outer limits beyond which a temporal relationship is too attenuated to establish a causal relationship so courts judge the permissible inferences that can be drawn from temporal proximity in the context of particular cases quoting gormanbakos v cornell coop extension 252 f3d 545 554 2d cir2001 espinal v goord 558 f3d 119 129 2d cir2009
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 parties hereby irrevocably and unconditionally submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for the purpose of any suit, action or other proceeding arising out of or based upon this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall pay all expenses, and reimburse the Manager for the Manager’s expenses incurred on its behalf, in connection with any such services to the extent such expenses are payable or reimbursable by the Company to the Manager pursuant to Section 9 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: refers to conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the accepted rules of morality and duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[F]or an offense to involve moral turpitude, it must require a reprehensible or despicable act” — one “that is inherently wrong, or malum in se, rather than conduct deemed wrong only because of a statutory proscription, malum prohibitum.” Id. at 921 (italics omitted). “A crime of moral turpitude, moreover, necessarily involves an evil intent or maliciousness in carrying out the reprehensible act.” Id. at 921-22. The BIA has long viewed prostitution-related crimes as morally turpitudinous. See, e.g., Matter of Lambert, 11 I. & N. Dec. 340, 342 (BIA 1965) (<HOLDING>); Matter of A— , 5 I. & N. Dec. 546, 549 (BIA Options: A. holding that summary convictions of crimes involving dishonesty could be used to impeach the credibility of a witness B. holding that funds were unavailable for attachment under section 1610 because they were never used for or designated for use in commercial activity C. holding that evidence of a defendants prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt D. holding that renting rooms with knowledge that the rooms were to be used for the purpose of lewdness assignation or prostitution were for crimes involving moral turpitude E. holding that absent clear congressional intent a defendant charged with transporting two women in interstate commerce at the same time could be charged with only one violation of the mann act which criminalized transporting any woman in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery or for any other immoral purpose

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that renting rooms with knowledge that the rooms were to be used for the purpose of lewdness assignation or prostitution were for crimes involving moral turpitude
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Loan Party will, nor will it permit any Domestic Subsidiary to, enter into any arrangement, directly or indirectly, whereby it shall sell or transfer any property, real or personal, used or useful in its business, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, and thereafter rent or lease such property or other property that it intends to use for substantially the same purpose or purposes as the property sold or transferred (a “ Sale and Leaseback Transaction ”), except for any such sale of any fixed or capital assets by any Borrower or any Domestic Subsidiary that is made for cash consideration in an amount not less than the fair value of such fixed or capital asset and is consummated within 90 days after such Borrower or such Domestic Subsidiary acquires or completes the construction of such fixed or capital asset.

assistant: Sales
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: We thus consider only whether the district court erred in finding that Plaintiffs due process claim was without legal merit. The Supreme Court has held that a prisoner’s due process rights will not generally be implicated by disciplinary actions that do not “impose[] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). Here, the disciplinary sanctions at issue consisted of a sixty-day denial of commissary and telephone privileges. Cases from this and other circuits indicate that this denial is not sufficiently severe to create a protected liberty interest. See, e.g., Blum v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 98-1055, 1999 WL 638232, at *3 (10th Cir. Aug. 23, 1999) (<HOLDING>); Villarreal v. Harrison, No. 99-1268, 1999 WL Options: A. holding that liberty interests implicating the due process clause are generally limited to freedom from restraint which imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life B. holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison C. holding that ninetyday confinement without store privileges radio and phone calls did not differ in significant degree and duration from ordinary incidents of prison life to create a protected liberty interest D. recognizing a liberty interest in reasonably safe conditions of confinement E. holding that inmates protected liberty interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the due process clause of its own force nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that ninetyday confinement without store privileges radio and phone calls did not differ in significant degree and duration from ordinary incidents of prison life to create a protected liberty interest
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that “[e]ven if the release plate had not been designed at the time the contract was entered, the sonobuoys conformed to the description of the goods contained in the contract .... ” Def.’s Supp. Br. at 8. Defendant says the description of the sonobuoys in the contract was merely 335 sonobuoys with dual depth capability; the release plate was not significant to the overall sonobuoy design described in the ECP, and was only a passing reference. Def.’s Reply at 4; Def.’s Supp. Br. at 8. Sparton contests these points and argues that the patented inventions were never part of the offer for sale because the ’0465 Contract does not encompass each limitation of the claimed inventions or render them obvious. See e.g., Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In so arguing, Plaintiff points specifically Options: A. holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art B. holding a determination that an invention was onsale within the meaning of the statute requires that a sale be operable the complete invention claimed be embodied in or obvious from the device offered for sale and the sale or offer be primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes C. holding that even credited testimony by an interested party absent corroborating documents is not sufficient to support a finding that a patent was anticipated by prior knowledge or use of the claimed invention D. holding that the moving party must show prior art references which alone or combined with other references would have rendered the invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention E. holding that an assignment or sale of rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention within the meaning of section 102b

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art
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: must be made for the rights which have been acquired, not for the more limited use to which the condem-nor may intend to devote the property taken.’ ” Id. (quoting 4A Nichols at § 14.15). To calculate the value of the property actually taken as a result of the permanent easements, the Court must consider not only the market value of the property and the amount of land taken, but also the percentage of the original bundle of ownership rights that the owner retains on the encumbered land. See, e.g., United States v. 122.63 Acres of Land, 526 F.Supp. 539, 542 (D.Mass.1981) (awarding only $500.00 in compensation after finding that permanent easement had only de minimus effect on owner’s use of pasture land); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. 104 Acres of Land, 780 F.Supp. 82, 88 (D.R.I. 1991) (<HOLDING>); Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Hebert, 207 Options: A. holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20 B. recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance C. holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement D. holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone E. holding that permanent easement on land containing natural gas pipeline reduced value of directly encumbered land by 75

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All headings and subdivisions of this Agreement are for reference only and shall not affect its interpretation. In the event that any provision of this Agreement should be held unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such court is hereby authorized to amend such provision so as to be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law, and all remaining provisions shall continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is in part a procedural right, the right to have the State of California consider certain factors when setting Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. See Orthopaedic Hosp., 103 F.3d at 1500; infra at 1112-13. This is a "procedural right" in the sense that it is a "procedural requirement the disregard of which could impair a separate and concrete interest of” plaintiffs (i.e., Medi-Cal beneficiaries’ interest in receiving equal access to medical care). Lujan, 504 U.S. at 572, 112 S.Ct. 2130. In a case involving a procedural right, the standards of redressability and causation applied in normal standing cases are relaxed. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (9th Cir.2003); Hall v. Norton, 266 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir.2001) 76 Cal.App.4th 124, 133, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 31 (1999) (<HOLDING>). 15 . The court expresses no opinion as to Options: A. holding that nonmutual issue preclusion should not apply against the state government B. holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive C. holding that when presented with petitioners claim based upon state and federal law and the state court confined its analysis to state law aedpa deference does not apply D. holding that preclusion rules apply in 1983 actions E. holding that as a matter of state law nonmutual offensive issue preclusion does not apply against the state

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that as a matter of state law nonmutual offensive issue preclusion does not apply against the state
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: ( note that if you were a service user prior to december 4 , 2012 and formally elected to opt out of the arbitration agreement pursuant to the procedures set out in our terms of service that were effective as of december 4 , 2012 , you are not subject to this arbitration agreement . )

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: By entering into this Agreement, the Participant acknowledges and agrees that the Award and acceptance of the YUM! Stock Appreciation Rights pursuant to this Agreement is voluntary and occasional and does not entitle the Participant to future grants of stock appreciation rights or other awards in the future under the Plan or any other plan even if stock appreciation rights have been granted repeatedly in the past. The Participant further agrees to seek all necessary approval under, make all required notifications under and comply with all laws, rules and regulations applicable to the ownership of YUM! Stock Appreciation Rights and Stock and the exercise of YUM! Stock Appreciation Rights, including, without limitation, currency and exchange laws, rules and regulations. The Participant shall have no rights as a shareholder of YUM! until a YUM! Stock Appreciation Right is exercised and shares subject thereto have been issued to the Participant.

assistant: Compliance With 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be binding upon the Senior Representatives, the Senior Secured Parties, the Second Priority Representatives, the Second Priority Debt Parties, each Borrower, the other Grantors party hereto and their respective successors and assigns.

assistant: Assigns
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, Schedule 4.12 contains a complete and accurate list of (a) all Subsidiaries of the Borrower, including, with respect to each Subsidiary, (i) its state of incorporation and (ii) the number and percentage of its shares owned by the Borrower and/or by any other Subsidiary, and (b) each Joint Venture, including, with respect to each such Joint Venture, (i) its jurisdiction of organization and (ii) the number and percentage of its shares owned by the Borrower and/or by any other Subsidiary. All the outstanding shares of Capital Stock of each Subsidiary of the Borrower are validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable, except as otherwise provided by state wage claim laws of general applicability. All of the outstanding shares of Capital Stock of each Subsidiary owned by the Borrower or another Subsidiary as specified in Schedule 4.12 are owned free and clear of all Liens, security interests, equity or other beneficial interests, charges and encumbrances of any kind whatsoever, except for Permitted Liens. Neither the Borrower nor any other Loan Party owns of record or beneficially any shares of the Capital Stock or other equity interests of any Subsidiary that is not a Guarantor, except Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All demands, notices and communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered or mailed by registered or certified first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, hand delivery, prepaid courier service, by facsimile or, if so provided on Schedule I to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, by electronic transmission, and addressed in each case as specified on Schedule I to the Sale and Servicing Agreement or at such other address as shall be designated by any of the specified addressees in a written notice to the other parties hereto. Delivery will be deemed to have been given and made: (i) upon delivery or, in the case of a letter mailed by registered or certified first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, three days after deposit in the mail, (ii) in the case of a facsimile, when receipt is confirmed by telephone, reply email or reply facsimile from the recipient, (iii) in the case of electronic transmission, when receipt is confirmed by telephone or reply email from the recipient and (iv) in the case of an electronic posting to a password-protected website to which the recipient has been provided access, upon delivery (without the requirement of confirmation of receipt) and notice (including email) to such recipient stating that such electronic posting has occurred.

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: At any time or from time to time after the Original Issue Date, the parties hereto agree to cooperate with each other, and at the request of any other party, to execute and deliver any further instruments or documents and to take all such further action as the other party may reasonably request in order to evidence or effectuate the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and to otherwise carry out the intent of the parties hereunder.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: Neither such Purchaser nor any of its affiliates is a party to any contract, agreement or understanding with any person that would give rise to a claim against the Company for a financial advisory fee, brokerage commission, finder’s fee or like payment in connection with the Offering.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each representation and warranty of Borrower and its Subsidiaries contained in the Credit Agreement and the other Loan Documents is true and correct in all material respects on the date hereof and will be true and correct in all material respects immediately after giving effect to the amendments set forth in Section 1 hereof (other than representations and warranties that were made as of a specific date, in which case such representations and warranties were true and correct in all material respects when made), except that to the extent that any such representation and warranty is already qualified by materiality, such representation and warranty shall be true and correct in all respects.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the defendant was less culpable than most other participants in [his] relevant conduct. Id. The district court did not clearly err in denying Lopez-Moreno a role reduc tion because (1) he was only held accountable for the quantity of drugs related to his role in the offense, (2) the quantity of drugs involved supported the court’s finding that he was not a minor participant, and (3) he failed to produce any evidence in support of his mitigating role. See De Varon, 175 F.3d at 939, 941, 943. Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue. IV. Booker Reasonableness (Arias only) We review sentences imposed under the post-Booker advisory Guideline scheme for reasonableness. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir.2005); Booker, 543 U.S. at 260-63, 125 S.Ct. at 765-66 (<HOLDING>). Following the Booker decision, we have held Options: A. holding that appellate court review sentences for unreasonableness in light of the 3553a factors B. holding that the district court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the 3553a factors or to discuss each of the 3553a factors C. recognizing that many of the 3553a factors are already incorporated into any guidelines determination and the 3553a factors can themselves overlap D. holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of 3553a E. holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the 3553a factors or to discuss each of the 3553a factors

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that appellate court review sentences for unreasonableness in light of the 3553a factors
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the Award will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, disregarding the choice-of-law principles of the State of Delaware and any other state requiring the application of a jurisdiction’s laws other than the State of Delaware.

assistant: Governing 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: please note that if you purchase a subscription through the apple itunes store or our iphone application , you may cancel automatic renewals by selecting manage app subscriptions in your itunes account settings and selecting the subscription you want to modify .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: relevant law of the two states is similar. Robinson bases its argument that the Committee lacks standing on the holding in Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Wagoner, 944 F.2d 114, 118 (2d Cir.1991), that when “a bankrupt corporation has joined with a third party in defrauding its creditors, the trustee cannot recover against the third party for the damage to the creditors.” Moreover, when the alleged malfeasor is the corporation’s sole shareholder and decision-maker, the Wagoner rule bars the trustee from suing even if the trustee claims that the debtor was harmed because, in that situat kruptcy trustee had no standing to sue a professional for aiding and abetting the unlawful investment activity of the president and sole shareholder of the bankrupt company); Mediators, 105 F.3d at 822 (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, the Committee, citing Reider v. Options: A. holding that the interest of the public especially the debtor and creditors could limit compensation to a debtors counsel B. holding that the debtor in possession could utilize the strongarm powers of the trustee to avoid an unperfected security interest even though the debtor knew of the interest prior to bankruptcy because the two are distinct entities and the debtor in possessions responsibility is to preserve the estates assets for the benefit of the creditors C. holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank D. holding that the creditors committee could not sue third party aidersandabettors because the participation of the sole shareholder and decisionmaker of the debtor rendered the debtor a participant E. holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the creditors committee could not sue third party aidersandabettors because the participation of the sole shareholder and decisionmaker of the debtor rendered the debtor a participant
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 Stockholder has full organizational power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of its obligations hereunder have been duly and validly approved by all requisite limited partnership action and no other organizational proceedings on the part of such Stockholder are necessary to approve this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder. This Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by such Stockholder and (assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by Parent) this Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of such Stockholder, enforceable against such Stockholder in accordance with its terms, except that such enforceability (i) may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium or other similar laws affecting or relating to the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and (ii) is subject to general principles of equity and the discretion of the court before which any proceedings seeking injunctive relief or specific performance may be brought. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement by such Stockholder, nor the consummation by such Stockholder of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor compliance by such Stockholder with any of the terms or provisions hereof, will (x) violate any provision of the governing documents of such Stockholder, (y) violate any statute, code, ordinance, rule, regulation, judgment, order, writ, decree or injunction applicable to such Stockholder, or any of its properties or assets, or (z) violate, conflict with, result in a breach of any provision of or the loss of any benefit under, constitute a default (or an event which, with notice or lapse of time, or both, would constitute a default) under, result in the termination of or a right of termination or cancellation under, accelerate the performance required by, or result in the creation of any lien, claim, mortgage, encumbrance, pledge, deed of trust, security interest, equity or charge of any kind (each, a “ Lien ”) upon any of the Subject Shares pursuant to any of the terms, conditions or provisions of any note, bond, mortgage, indenture, deed of trust, license, lease, agreement or other instrument or obligation to which such Stockholder is a party, or by which it or any of its properties or assets may be bound or affected.

assistant: Authority
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: responds that its claim is permitted by section 115B.06 because contamination from. Carney’s Walker site has continued to migrate to the adjacent Soo Line site since 1983. Hence, according to Soo Line,' some of the hazardous substances contaminating the Soo Line site were not placed and did not come to be located there wholly before July 1,1983. Although Soo Line’s argument is creative, it is unavailing. In City of Minneapolis v. Arkla, Inc., 1993 WL 61827, at *2 (D.Minn. February 18, 1993), the Court, in a decision by the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, held, in eircuinstanees similar to the one presented here, that section 115B.06 bars claims where there are allegations of continuing migration of contaminants from one property to another after 1983. See also Werlein, 746 F.Supp. at 910 (<HOLDING>). This Court agrees with the Ark-la court’s Options: A. recognizing that section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment B. holding claims relating to hazardous substances that were placed at a site prior to 1983 are barred despite the fact that these substances allegedly were being thrown into the air and settling elsewhere after 1983 C. holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under 1983 D. holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims E. holding that claims under 1983 1985 and 1986 are barred for the further reason that these statutes create rights solely against persons and a state is not considered a person under these statutes

assistant: The best answer is B. holding claims relating to hazardous substances that were placed at a site prior to 1983 are barred despite the fact that these substances allegedly were being thrown into the air and settling elsewhere after 1983
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 a breach by any of the Loan Parties in the performance of any of the terms of this Agreement, the Administrative Agent, on behalf of the Lenders, may demand specific performance of this Agreement and seek injunctive relief and may exercise any other remedy available at law or in equity, it being recognized that the remedies of the Administrative Agent on behalf of the Lenders at law may not fully compensate the Administrative Agent on behalf of the Lenders for the damages they may suffer in the event of a breach hereof.

assistant: Remedies
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: exercise jurisdiction over passengers who were not residents of Pennsylvania, the numerosity requirement has not been met. This is completely contrary to the court’s ruling in Janick, supra. The court stated: “Our Supreme Court has held that a common pleas court may exercise jurisdiction over absent class members who are Pennsylvania residents, as well as those non-residents who submit themselves to its jurisdiction”. Defendants further assert that because only one formal action has been commenced against Cunard, there is a lack of interest among class members. However, there is no provision under the class action laws requiring that a minimum number of claims be received before certification will be granted. See e.g. Simon v. Cunard Line Limited, 75 A.D.2d 283, 428 N.Y.S.2d 952 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Even so, Cunard’s own records reveal that Options: A. holding need certification filed after information returned was timely because the statute includes no deadline for filing a certification and no court has imposed one B. holding that a large number of formal complaints was not necessary to certification especially where all the passengers were on one ship suffering common complaints C. holding that the complaints of a public employee about a reorganization plan were on a matter of public concern even though the employee was primarily motivated by the adverse effect of the plan on himself D. holding in part that complaints focused on individual compensation do not involve a matter of public concern E. holding that private complaints by public employee that his responsibilities were being lessened and his recommendations were not being followed were at least for the most part not on a matter of public concern

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a large number of formal complaints was not necessary to certification especially where all the passengers were on one ship suffering common complaints
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: issue in the present case is whether Argo violated any of Wilkey’s federal rights. Wilkey alleges that Argo violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force when he pinned Wilkey against the hood of Officer Cranfield’s Jeep and restrained him there. Argo concedes that his actions constituted a “seizure” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (explaining that “[a] seizure triggering the Fourth Amendment’s protections occurs only when government actors have, by means of physical force or show of authority, ... in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen”) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, Wilkey’s claim is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard. Id. at 395 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis omitted). “Determining whether the Options: A. holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment B. holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment C. holding that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest investigatory stop or other seizure of a free citizen should be analyzed under the fourth amendment and its reasonableness standard D. holding that excessive force by a school official should be analyzed under the fourth amendment E. holding that claims that law enforcement officials used excessive force in making an arrest are properly analyzed under the fourth amendments objective reasonableness standard

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest investigatory stop or other seizure of a free citizen should be analyzed under the fourth amendment and its reasonableness standard
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: relief at the time of the hearing. Because Lopez-Velasquez has not established that his deportation order was invalid, his motion to dismiss his § 1326 indictment was improperly granted. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss the indictment. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1 . The other category was a general amnesty program for aliens who had resided continuously in the United States since 1982. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a. 2 . Although we and the Second Circuit have held that an IJ's failure to inform an alien of possible eligibility for discretionary relief constitutes a due process violation, most other circuits have adopted a more limited interpretation of the IJ’s duty to inform. See United States v. Copeland, 376 F.3d 61, 70-73 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Santiago-Ochoa, 447 Options: A. holding that doctrine does not violate due process B. holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he is eligible for relief from deportation constitutes due process violation where alien establishes prejudice C. holding that failure to advise an alien of possible forms of relief may violate due process D. holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim E. holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he was eligible for relief from deportation constitutes a due process violation if alien establishes prejudice

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that failure to advise an alien of possible forms of relief may violate due process