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: crimes and crimes involving only accidental, negligent, or reckless conduct. It listed crimes which, “though dangerous, are not typically committed by those whom one normally labels ‘armed career criminals.’ ” Id. at 146-47, 128 S.Ct. 1581 (citing as examples “Ark.Code Ann. § 8-4 — 103(a)(2)(A)(ii) (2007) (reckless polluters); 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1) (individuals who negligently introduce pollutants into the sewer system); 18 U.S.C. § 1365(a) (individuals who recklessly tamper with consumer products); [18 U.S.C.] § 1115 (seamen whose in s reckless endangerment statute is not a crime of violence under Begay)-, Gray, 535 F.3d at 131-32 (same with respect to New York reckless endangerment statute because it “does not criminalize purposeful or deliberate conduct”); Smith, 544 F.3d at 786 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Herrick, 545 F.3d 53, 60 Options: A. holding that neither recklessness nor gross negligence is a sufficient mens rea to establish that a conviction is for a crime of violence under section 16 B. holding that one can be convicted of attempted manslaughter under the subsections of section 765205 that require intentional conduct but not under the subsection that only requires the mens rea of recklessness C. holding that the enhanced minimum sentence for discharging a firearm requires no additional mens rea specific to the firing of the gun D. holding that those crimes with a mens rea of negligence or recklessness do not trigger the enhanced penalties mandated by the acca E. holding that a mens rea of unlawfully in the indictment was sufficient because the indictment referenced the applicable statute which required a reckless mens rea

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that those crimes with a mens rea of negligence or recklessness do not trigger the enhanced penalties mandated by the acca
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 and any claim, controversy, dispute or cause of action (whether in contract or tort or otherwise) based upon, arising out of or relating to this Amendment and the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the law of the State of New York.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: United States trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court shall dismiss a case or convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title, whichever is in the best interest of the creditors and the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 1307 (2008). There is an inherent requirement of good faith in chapter 13 cases. Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365, 127 S.Ct. 1105, 166 L.Ed.2d 956 (2007); In re Kitchens, 702 F.2d 885 (11th Cir.1983). Courts which have considered the issue since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marrama have held that this requisite good faith conduct prevents a bad faith debtor in chapter 13 from having an absolute right to dismiss under section 1307(b). Rosson v. Fitzgerald, 2008 U.S.App. LEXIS 20233, 2008 WL 4330558 (9th Cir. March 13, 2008)(<HOLDING>); see also Molitor v. Eidson (In re Molitor), Options: A. holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim B. holding that after marrama the absolute right position is no longer viable C. holding that such a theory is viable under title vii D. recognizing a challenge to jurisdiction as a viable claim E. holding appellants reassignment from a command position to an investigative position where he reported to an officer with a lower rank and no longer served as a direct report to the chief of police supported a conclusion that appellant was transferred to a less prestigious position

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that after marrama the absolute right position is no longer viable
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: Kinnie v. United States, 994 F.2d 279, 286 (6th Cir.1993)). A taxpayer who is not in bankruptcy cannot compel the IRS to allocate payments. Appellant appears to be arguing however, that the bankruptcy court has the authority to compel the IRS to allocate payments to the tax and interest rather than penalty. Appellant’s argument that the IRS’s application of this prepetition payment to the penalty is an avoidable transfer is a back door route to requiring the bankruptcy court to order the IRS to allocate the payment to tax and interest. Several courts, including the Supreme Court, have addressed the issue of the bankruptcy court’s authority to order the IRS to reallocate payments. See United States v. Energy Resources Co., 495 U.S. 545, 549, 110 S.Ct. 2139, 109 L.Ed.2d 580 (1990) (<HOLDING>). But see IRS v. Kaplan Bldg. Sys., Inc. (In re Options: A. holding that postconfirmation income that is not necessary to the fulfillment of the plan of reorganization does not become part of the bankruptcy estate B. holding that postconfirmation income that is not necessary to the fulfillment of the plan of reorganization does not become pari of bankruptcy estate C. holding that the bankruptcy court has the inherent power to award sanctions for badfaith conduct in a bankruptcy court proceeding D. holding that creditor lacked appellate standing to appeal order of bankruptcy court absent permission of bankruptcy court E. holding that a bankruptcy court has the authority to order the irs to apply the payments to trust fund liabilities if the bankruptcy court determines that this designation is necessary to the success of a reorganization plan

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a bankruptcy court has the authority to order the irs to apply the payments to trust fund liabilities if the bankruptcy court determines that this designation is necessary to the success of a reorganization plan
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in the SEC Reports, none of the officers or directors of the Company or any Subsidiary and, to the knowledge of the Company, none of the employees of the Company or any Subsidiary is presently a party to any transaction with the Company or any Subsidiary (other than for services as employees, officers and directors), including any contract, agreement or other arrangement providing for the furnishing of services to or by, providing for rental of real or personal property to or from, providing for the borrowing of money from or lending of money to or otherwise requiring payments to or from any officer, director or such employee or, to the knowledge of the Company, any corporation, partnership, trust or other entity in which any officer, director, or any such employee has a substantial interest or is an officer, director, trustee, stockholder, member or partner, in each case in excess of the lesser of $120,000 or one percent of the average of the Company’s total assets at year end for the last two completed fiscal years other than for: (i) payment of salary or consulting fees for services rendered, (ii) reimbursement for expenses incurred on behalf of the Company and (iii) other employee benefits, including stock option agreements under any stock incentive plan of the Company. As of the date hereof, each of Timothy J.R. Harris, Ph.D., D.Sc., Kevin Krenitsky, M.D., Timothy C. Dec, Robert McG. Lilley, Vadim Sapiro and Albert J. Risdorfer is an employee or affiliate of the Company as those terms are used in FINRA Rule 5123.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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 issue here is the air bladder, and only the air bladder. (Big-man Deck, Ex. 8 at 105.) Plaintiff has, however, admitted that its “air bladder concept and design” (the trade secret) were disclosed in the ’099 Patent, which issued on September 9, 1986. (First Am.Compl. ¶ 10.) Additionally, this Court has previously determined that “the information disclosed to Reebok in May of 1986 was contained in the [’099 Patent].” (Order of Dec. 6, 1993.) Thus, as plaintiffs trade secret was extinguished in September 1986 with the issuance of the ’099 Patent, Reebok'couíd only be liable on plaintiffs trade secret claims for products incorporating the trade secret that were sold by defendant prior to the issuance date of the patent. See Timely Prods. Corp. v. Arron, 523 F.2d 288, 304 (2d Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); Trenton Indus. v. A.E. Peterson Mfg. Co., 165 Options: A. holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale B. holding that a plaintiff could recover actual damages under the tcpa for loss of credit if the plaintiff submitted sufficient proof of the amount damages requested C. holding that if the breach of an entire contract is only partial the plaintiff can recover only such damages as he or she has sustained leaving prospective damages to a later suit in the event of further breaches D. holding that plaintiff could recover royalties only for products manufactured by defendant after disclosure of secret but before issuance of patent E. holding that plaintiff could recover only damages sustained as a result of the sale of the accused product by defendant prior to the issuance date

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiff could recover only damages sustained as a result of the sale of the accused product by defendant prior to the issuance date
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: a printed version of these terms of service and of any notice given in electronic form shall be admissible in judicial or administrative proceedings based upon or relating to these terms of service to the same extent and subject to the same conditions as other business documents and records originally generated and maintained in printed form .

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: The proceeds of the Revolving Loans will be used only (i) to finance the working capital needs, and for general corporate purposes, of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries in the ordinary course of business (ii) to finance Permitted Acquisitions and Limited Equity Acquisitions and Permitted Safeguard Distributor Transactions and (iii) to refinance the 2020 Bonds. The proceeds of the Term Loans shall be used for general corporate purposes of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries (including, but not limited to, the repayment of all remaining 2020 Bonds). No part of the proceeds of any Loan will be used, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose that entails a violation of any of the Regulations of the Board, including Regulations T, U and X. The Borrower will not request any Borrowing or Letter of Credit, and the Borrower shall not use, and the Borrower shall ensure that its Subsidiaries and its or their respective directors, officers, employees and agents shall not use, the proceeds of any Borrowing or Letter of Credit (i) in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment or giving of money, or anything else of value, to any Person in violation of any Anti-Corruption Laws, (ii) for the purpose of funding, financing or facilitating any activities, business or transaction of or with any Sanctioned Person, or in any Sanctioned Country, to the extent such activities, business or transaction would be prohibited by Sanctions if conducted by a corporation incorporated in the United States or in a European Union member state or (iii) in any manner that would result in the violation of any Sanctions applicable to any party hereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH OF THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT ANY CONTROVERSY THAT MAY ARISE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS LIKELY TO INVOLVE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT ISSUES, AND THEREFORE EACH OF THE PARTIES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT SUCH PARTY MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT. EACH OF THE PARTIES CERTIFIES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT (A) NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF THE OTHER PARTIES HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT THE OTHER PARTIES WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF ANY LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER, (B) EACH OF THE PARTIES UNDERSTANDS AND HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WAIVER, (C) EACH OF THE PARTIES MAKES THIS WAIVER VOLUNTARILY AND (D) EACH OF THE PARTIES HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS Section 8.15.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 Supplemental Separation Agreement, the Equity Award Documents, the Retirement Agreement, and the Confidentiality Agreement, constitute the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties concerning the subject matter of this Supplemental Separation Agreement and all prior and contemporaneous representations, understandings, and agreements concerning the subject matter of this Supplemental Separation Agreement (other than the Confidentiality Agreement) have been superseded by the terms of this Supplemental Separation Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: DISCUSSION I. The County was not required to hold a public auction before entering into the cooperative agreement ¶ 7 In reviewing a summary judgment in a case involving undisputed material facts, we independently review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts. Canady v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Ass’n, 204 Ariz. 91, 92, ¶ 6, 60 P.3d 231, 232 (App. 2002). ¶ 8 This ease presents an issue of statutory interpretation. Johnson, characterizing the agreement between the County and the City as a lease, relies primarily on §§ 11-251(9) and -256 to support his argument that all leases or subleases of county property must, absent a unanimous vote of the board of supervisors, be put up for public auction. See Davis v. Hidden, 124 Ariz. 546, 548, 606 P.2d 36, 38 (App.1979) (<HOLDING>). Appellees claim that the agreement is not a Options: A. holding that a healthcare power of attorney conferred by a resident to his wife explicitly limited the powers of the agent to those set out in writing in the document B. holding that a probate courts jurisdiction is limited to that expressly conferred or which is necessarily implied from those expressly conferred C. holding the facility had certain powers despite fact that statute did not expressly confer those powers because facility does not derive power solely from statute D. holding entities created by statute can only exercise the powers granted to them by the legislature E. holding that the board of supervisors possesses only those powers expressly conferred by statute or necessarily implied therefrom

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the board of supervisors possesses only those powers expressly conferred by statute or necessarily implied therefrom
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: From and after the Effective Date, the Administrative Agent shall make all payments in respect of [the][each] Assigned Interest (including payments of principal, interest, fees and other amounts) to [the][the relevant] Assignor for amounts which have accrued to but excluding the Effective Date and to [the] the relevant] Assignee for amounts which have accrued from and after the Effective Date.

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: no “final adjudication of the action” within the meaning of the PSLRA because the district court “impliedly determined that [he] lacked statutory standing under the Exchange Act and prudential standing under [Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 728, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975) ],” Appellants’ Br. at 27, this argument is not supported by the record. Even assuming arguendo that a dismissal for lack of standing would not constitute a final adjudication for purposes of the PSLRA, the district court’s decision makes clear that it is an adjudication of the merits (ie., the timeliness) of Libaire’s claims, not a determination of whether he had standing to bring suit. See generally Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, it is undisputed that Libaire is a Options: A. holding that under federal law the dismissal of a claim as timebarred is adjudication of merits for purposes of res judicata B. holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes C. holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata D. holding that application of res judicata requires that a prior adjudication include a ruling on the merits E. holding that a federal courts dismissal of state claims without prejudice is not res judicata as to adjudication in either state or federal courts

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that under federal law the dismissal of a claim as timebarred is adjudication of merits for purposes of res judicata
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: Purchaser is a banking corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Tennessee, and has the requisite corporate power and authority and has taken all corporate action necessary in order to execute and deliver this Agreement, to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and to own the Assets and to operate the Branches. This Agreement is a valid and binding agreement of Purchaser enforceable against Purchaser in accordance with its terms subject, as to enforcement, to the Enforceability Exceptions.

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: and the restrictions and limitations that he believed should be placed on Myers’ ability to work. ECF No. 27-2 at PagelD #: 302 (A.R. 151). There is no other medial opinion in the record from a treating physician that speaks to whether any restrictions on Myers’ ability to work are warranted. Significantly, this evidence was submitted in response to the initial denial that only imposed restrictions and limitations from the last day worked through four weeks for mononucleosis; and from, .the last day worked through six weeks post-operative of a March 29, 2013 surgery — neither of which were due to Lyme disease. Dr. Joseph’s summary letter contradicts this limited finding of limitation and restriction, yet United’s second denial letter does not address it. See Conger, 474 F.3d at 268 (<HOLDING>); Houston, 246 Fed.Appx. at 301 (finding that Options: A. holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation B. holding that the plan administrator abused its discretion when it ignored contrary evidence without explanation C. holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator D. holding that a plan administrator must address any reliable contrary evidence E. holding that plan administrator abused its discretion when it interpreted plan as giving it the right to subrogation with respect to all claims and not just those claims for medical expenses

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plan administrator abused its discretion when it ignored contrary evidence without explanation
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: doing so in front of Lee. 7 The jury found that Lee committed the murder while engaged in the commission of armed robbery and kidnapping with bodily injury, that he committed the murder for himself or another for the purpose of receiving money or any other thing of monetary value, and that the offense of murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman in that it involved an aggravated battery to the victim before death. OCGA § 17-10-30 (b) (2), (4), (7). 8 We note that the habeas court relied on affidavit testimony it previously ruled inadmissible as hearsay to find that Lee’s mother also told him at the time that his father’s Silverado was his “child support.” 9 We offer no opinion as to the admissibility of these documents. See Smith u. State, supra, 270 Ga. at 249 Options: A. holding exculpatory statements by a third party should have been admitted in the punishment phase notwithstanding the hearsay rule B. holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless C. holding that a suspended lawyer remains subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court for acts committed while suspended D. holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution E. holding that the hearsay rule is not suspended in the sentencing phase

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the hearsay rule is not suspended in the sentencing phase
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: See Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 187 F.3d 941, 950 (8th Cir.1999), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 937, 145 L.Ed.2d 815 (2000). Whether that option is available to Green at the present time is questionable, however. If Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) applies to putative class actions before certification of the class, then court approval for the dismissal would be required in any event. See id. 19 . But see Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1999) (stating that a district court ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion may consider materials that are "necessarily embraced by the pleadings.") (citing Piper Jaffray Cos. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 967 F.Supp. 1148, 1152 (D.Minn.1997)); Silver v. H & R Block, Inc., 105 F.3d 394, 397 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Parnes v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 122 F.3d 539, Options: A. holding that district court may consider documents referred to in plaintiffs complaint and central to his claim B. holding that court could consider undisputed documents upon which the plaintiff based his action C. holding that the district court properly dismissed an indictment where the parties argued the applicability of a statute based on a set of undisputed facts D. holding that a court may consider documents that have not been incorporated by reference where the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effect which renders the document integral to the complaint E. holding that 1 the complaint is deemed to include any documents incorporated in it by reference and any document upon which it solely relies and which is integral to the complaint and that the court may consider such documents on a motion to dismiss pursuant to fedrcivp 12b6

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that court could consider undisputed documents upon which the plaintiff based his action
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: violates , plagiarises or infringes upon the rights of any third party , including but not limited to any copyright or trade-mark law , privacy or other personal or proprietary rights , or

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: 3. All right title and interest in and to the Confidential Information shall remain with Disclosing Party or its licensors. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to grant any rights to Recipient under any patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secrets of Disclosing Party.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this 2015 Time-Based Plan are severable and if any one or more provisions are determined to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, in whole or in part, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be binding and enforceable.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may not be amended or modified except (a) by an instrument in writing signed by or on behalf of Willis and WEST or (b) by a waiver in accordance with Section 7.01; provided that, any such amendment or waiver by WEST shall have been consented to by the Indenture Trustee (unless the lien of the Indenture has been irrevocably satisfied and discharged in full).

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: There are no pending, or to Contributor’s knowledge, threatened judicial, municipal or administrative proceedings affecting the Property or against the fee simple owner of the Land affecting the use, ownership or operation of the Property or any portion thereof, except in any such case as would not have a Contributor Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: serving a short sentence. To the extent Martinez may afford defendants review in federal court of claims which the state court has not reviewed, such a possibility does not extend to short sentence defendants who, like Petitioner, would not be able to satisfy the custody requirement of the federal ha-beas statute by being subject to a sentence at the time the federal habeas petition is filed. See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490-91, 109 S.Ct. 1923 (observing that the Court has interpreted the federal habeas corpus custody requirement as being satisfie ideration nor raised her claim earlier to afford more time for review. Consequently, the PCRA did not bar her opportunity to be heard as she asserts and as the PCRA court found. See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 737 A.2d 214, 220 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Because it is Petitioner’s burden to prove Options: A. holding that the denial of pcra relief cannot stand unless the petitioner was afforded the assistance of counsel B. holding that the constitutional nature of the violations alleged in a pcra petition has no effect on the application of the pcra jurisdictional time bar C. holding that where the appellant had the opportunity to bring his petition within the parameters of the jurisdictional requirements of the pcra yet did not do so he cannot complain of a lack of due process D. holding that because an untimely pcra petition was premised on claims that were cognizable under the pcra the statutory writ of habeas corpus was unavailable E. holding that a pcra petitioner may not raise new claims by merely supplementing a pending pcra petition without court authorization because to do so would wrongly subvert the time limitation and serial petition restrictions of the pcra

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where the appellant had the opportunity to bring his petition within the parameters of the jurisdictional requirements of the pcra yet did not do so he cannot complain of a lack of due process
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No ERISA Event has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur that, when taken together with all other such ERISA Events for which liability is reasonably expected to occur, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. The present value of all accumulated benefit obligations under each Plan (based on the assumptions used for purposes of FASB Statement 87) did not, as of the date of the most recent financial statements reflecting such amounts, exceed the fair market value of the assets of such Plan by an amount that could reasonably be expected to result in Material Adverse Effect, and the present value of all accumulated benefit obligations of all underfunded Plans (based on the assumptions used for purposes of FASB Statement 87) did not, as of the date of the most recent financial statements reflecting such amounts, exceed the fair market value of the assets of all such underfunded Plans by an amount that could reasonably be expected to result in Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: For all services rendered under this Agreement during the term of Executive’s employment, the Company shall pay Executive (i) a minimum annual Base Salary of $725,000 for 2017, pro-rated from the Effective Date; and (ii) a minimum annual Base Salary of $750,000 for 2018. Executive’s Base Salary shall be reviewed annually by the Board, or a committee of the Board, and may be increased in the sole discretion of the Board, or such committee of the Board.

assistant: Base Salary
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: continue committing crimes at an escalating pace. It is the tested theory of rehabilitation on appellant that sets this case apart from other challenges to a juvenile’s life sentence. There is record evidence to support appellant’s inability to rehabilitate— evidence that is usually not available upon an original sentencing proceeding. The trial court balanced the possibility of appellant’s rehabilitation with the safety of society in determining his sentence and was well within its discretion to do so. Accordingly, while appellant is correct that a true life sentence is typically reserved for juveniles guilty of more heinous crimes such as homicide, none of the cases cited by appellant involved a tested theory of rehabilitation. See Tate, 864 So.2d at 46-47, 5 82, 1286 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>)), a plain reading of the ICCPR does not Options: A. holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school B. holding that such provisions are valid C. holding that the clear language of the iccpr manifests that its provisions are to govern the relationship between an individual and his state D. holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa E. holding that attorneys should be disqualified where the substantial relationship test is met in order to assure that the confidentiality of the attorneyclient relationship and the loyalty between attorney and client are preserved

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the clear language of the iccpr manifests that its provisions are to govern the relationship between an individual and his state
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The covenants and agreements contained herein are separate and severable and the invalidity or unenforceability of any one or more of such covenants or agreements, if not material to the employment arrangement that is the basis for this Agreement, will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other covenant or agreement contained herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Stock Option Agreement shall specify the date or event when all or any installment of the Option is to become vested and/or exercisable. The Stock Option Agreement shall also specify the term of the Option; provided that , except to the extent necessary to comply with applicable foreign law, the term of an Option shall in no event exceed 10 years from the date of grant. A Stock Option Agreement may provide for accelerated vesting and/or exercisability upon certain specified events and may provide for expiration prior to the end of its term in the event of the termination of the Optionee ’ s Service.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: as a factor in the willful infringement analysis is simply not supported by the language of Seagate. See Tyco Healthcare Group, LP v. Applied Med. Res. Corp., No. 06 Civ. 151, 2009 WL 5842063, at *2 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 30, 2009) (“neither Seagate nor [Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2004) ] hold that the trier of fact cannot take the failure to seek advice of counsel into account.”). Knorr-Bremse held that even though an adverse inference could not be drawn from the alleged infringer’s failure to obtain the advice of counsel, it also held that it was proper for the fact finder to consider the totality of circumstances. See also Franklin Elec. Co., Inc. v. Dover Corp., No. 05 Civ. 598, 2007 WL 5067678, at *8 (W.D.Wis. Nov. 15, 2007) (<HOLDING>). The Seagate court cited Knorr-Bremse with Options: A. holding that defendants failure to seek advice of counsel goes to the second component of the seagate test what defendant knew or should have known with respect to the likelihood of infringement B. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims C. holding the test for foreseeability is whether the wife knew or should have known of her husbands proclivities D. holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong E. holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that defendants failure to seek advice of counsel goes to the second component of the seagate test what defendant knew or should have known with respect to the likelihood of infringement
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 Participant acknowledges that the restrictions and duration of the obligations set forth in in Section II 1.1 above are reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the Related Companies and the goodwill thereof and do not and will not impose an unreasonable burden upon the Participant. The Company and the Participant agree that if, at the time of enforcement of Section II 1.1 above, a court holds that any restriction stated in any such section is unreasonable under circumstances then existing, then the maximum period, scope or geographical area reasonable under such circumstances will be substituted for the otherwise-applicable period, scope or area. The Participant agrees that money damages would be an inadequate remedy for any breach of Section II 1.1 above. Therefore, in the event of a breach or threatened breach of Section II 1.1 above, any Related Company, in addition to other rights and remedies existing in its favor, shall be entitled to specific performance and/or injunctive or other equitable relief from a court of competent jurisdiction in order to enforce, or prevent any violations of, the provisions hereof (without posting a bond or other security). The provisions of Section II 1.1 above are intended to be for the benefit of each Related Company, each of which may enforce such provisions and each of which (other than the Company) is an express third-party beneficiary of such provisions and of this Agreement generally.

assistant: Enforcements
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: Obligors have developed and implemented and maintain in effect internal controls, policies and procedures, management oversight, monitoring, audit and training designed to ensure compliance by Obligors, their Subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents with applicable Anti-Corruption Laws and applicable Sanctions. Obligors, their Subsidiaries and, to the knowledge of any Obligor, their respective officers, employees, directors and agents are in compliance with Anti-Corruption Laws and applicable Sanctions. None of (a) Obligors, any Subsidiary or any of their respective directors or officers, or (b) to the knowledge of any Obligor, any employee or agent of any Obligor or any Subsidiary that will act in any capacity in connection with or benefit from the credit facility established hereby, is a Sanctioned Person or otherwise subject to Sanctions. No Borrowing, use of proceeds or other transaction will violate Anti-Corruption Laws or applicable Sanctions.

assistant: Anti-Corruption 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: In the event that any provision in this Agreement becomes or is declared by a court, arbitrator, or agency of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, unenforceable or void, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect without said provision. If any court, arbitrator, or agency finds a provision invalid, the Parties agree that such court, arbitrator or agency shall modify the provision to comport with current law to the fullest extent possible in a manner most consistent with the Parties’ intent as demonstrated by the terms of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The annual base salary for this position is $320,000. As you know, the position is a full-time, exempt salaried position for purposes of federal wage-hour laws, which means that you will not be eligible for overtime pay for hours actually worked in excess of forty hours in a given workweek.

assistant: Base Salary
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 will reimburse Executive for reasonable travel, entertainment and other expenses incurred by Executive in the furtherance of the performance of Executive’s duties hereunder, in accordance with the Company’s expense reimbursement policy as in effect from time to time.

assistant: Expenses
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: litigation.’ Consequently, some informality of proof is appropriate.” United States v. 88.88 Acres of Land, 907 F.2d 106, 108 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). The Court of Federal Claims (a trial-level Article I court, see 28 U.S.C. § 171) has found inadequate a party’s unsupported statement that he satisfied the EAJA net worth requirement, but in that case there was contradictory evidence in the record about the plaintiffs net worth. Doe v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 337, 343 (Fed.Cl.2002). The court undoubtedly saw a red flag when “the underlying cause of action began with the assertion that plaintiff was ‘a prospective buyer’ of a yacht.” Id. See also Fields v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 376, 383 (Fed.Cl.1993) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, the Federal Circuit (which, of Options: A. holding that conclusory allegation of conspiracy without supporting factual averments insufficient to state claim B. holding that a conclusory affidavit without supporting evidence is inadequate to establish net worth C. holding that conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based citations omitted D. holding conclusory assertions of intent to cause insufficient without supporting facts E. holding that a district court may rely on undisputed conclusory statements in the psr even in the absence of supporting evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a conclusory affidavit without supporting evidence is inadequate to establish net worth
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: the Eastern District of Missouri had held, without discussion, that the FLSA does not provide for punitive damages in retaliation cases. Waldermeyer v. ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 782 F.Supp. 86, 88 (E.D.Mo.1991). On the other hand, the Western District of Missouri followed the Seventh Circuit in one case decided before Snapp, O’Brien v. Dekalb-Clinton Counties Ambulance Dist., 1996 WL 565817, at *6 (W.D.Mo. June 24, 1996) (“In the absence of conflicting interpretation of the amended section 16(b) by another circuit, the court is persuaded to follow the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning and hold that compensatory and punitive damages are available for violation of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision.”). See also Johnston v. Davis Security, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1230-31 (D.Utah 2002) (<HOLDING>); Lanza v. Sugarland Run Homemmers Ass’n, Inc., Options: A. holding that punitive damages are recoverable in a claim for retaliation under the flsa B. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable under viwda C. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable under subsection 216b D. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities under 1988 E. holding punitive damages not recoverable under 2715

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable under subsection 216b
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 that there are objectionable trade-offs in terms of relief. See Diaz, 876 F.2d at 1409 (factors do not weigh in favor of notice where claims were dismissed rather than settled). The parties also state that class members have not been prejudiced because the class claims are being dismissed without prejudice so that, even if class members could pursue claims despite the Yeager decision, their rights have not been affected. There is certainly no evidence that the named Plaintiff is compromising claims of the class in order to gain an advantage, since the dismissal is being sought based on an adverse ruling of the Supreme Court of Alabama in the Yeager case, which would be dispositive of the claims in this case. See Brooks v. State Board of Elections, 173 F.R.D. 552 (S.D.Ga.1997) (<HOLDING>). The parties have also stated that there has Options: A. holding in a case where a class was certified that there was an absence of collusion since the dismissal based on a string of adverse decisions which had drained the case of legal merit made the dismissal the functional equivalent of an involuntary dismissal B. holding that in considering dismissal of an appeal the court should exercise discretion to determine whether dismissal is appropriate in the circumstances presented by the case C. holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered D. holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order E. holding that a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is dispositive because it is the functional equivalent of an involuntary dismissal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding in a case where a class was certified that there was an absence of collusion since the dismissal based on a string of adverse decisions which had drained the case of legal merit made the dismissal the functional equivalent of an involuntary dismissal