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: For purposes of this Agreement, "Proprietary Information" shall mean written, documentary or oral information of any kind disclosed by Cyberlux or ICT to the other and designated as proprietary information, including, but not limited to, (a) information of a business, planning, marketing or technical nature, (b) models, tools, hardware and software, and (c) any documents, reports, memoranda, notes, files or analyses prepared by or on behalf of the receiving party that contain, summarize or are based upon any Proprietary Information, provided that "Proprietary Information" shall not include information which: (vi) is obligated to be produced under order of a court of competent jurisdiction or a valid administrative or congressional subpoena, provided that the receiving party promptly notifies the disclosing party of such event so that the disclosing party may seek an appropriate protective order or waive compliance by the receiving party with the terns of this Agreement.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “supplies little information concerning an informant’s reliability”). Nor was the information contained in the affidavit stale. Evidence tending to establish the existence of an ongoing criminal enterprise “will generally defeat a claim of staleness.” United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554, 573 (6th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the information in the affidavit (particularly the observations of Special Agent Chis-dock, which occurred over several months) made clear that Grooms’s drug-trafficking activities at the Park Entrance Grocery were of an ongoing nature. Thus the five-month gap between Chisdock’s last undercover visit to the store (in April 2009) and the issuance of the warrant (in September 2009) did not render the underlying information stale. See id. (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d Options: A. holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor B. holding that a 23month gap was insufficient to show staleness C. holding that a threeyear gap was insufficient to demonstrate staleness where the criminal activity was ongoing D. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation E. holding evidence of one possible burglary before incident at issue insufficient to demonstrate prior criminal activity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a threeyear gap was insufficient to demonstrate staleness where the criminal activity was ongoing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of Colo., Div. of Youth Services, 17 F.3d 1323, 1330 (10th Cir.1994). The Court will address each of these bases for liability in turn. 1. Scope of Employment Restatement § 229 provides a general definition of “scope of employment”, stating that “[t]o be within the scope of employment, conduct must be of the same general nature as that authorized, or incidental to the conduct authorized.” The comments to the Restatement provide further explanation of the meaning of “scope of employment”: “Proof that the actor was in the general employment of the 18 (10th Cir.1987) (“sexual harassment simply is not within the job description of any supervisor or any other worker in any reputable business”) (citation omitted); Sparks v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 830 F.2d 1554, 1559 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Although the effect is to restrict Options: A. holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes B. holding that restatement 2191 is inapplicable to alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor was sexual harassment within the scope of antonis employment of course not C. holding that the liability of a principal or master to a third person based upon respondeat superior is purely derivative and thus a judgment on the merits for or against the agent or servant is res judicata visavis the principal or master though he was not a party to the action D. recognizing that acts are not within the scope of employment and a master is insulated from liability under restatement 2191 where the servant was acting entirely for his own benefit E. holding in accordance with the restatement that a master may be subject to liability for the torts of his servants acting outside the scope of their employment if the servants conduct violated a nondelegable duty of the master or the servant purported to act on behalf of the principal there was reliance upon the apparent authority or he was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relationship

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that acts are not within the scope of employment and a master is insulated from liability under restatement 2191 where the servant was acting entirely for his own benefit
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Company pays a cash dividend on its Common Stock, then, as soon as practical after such cash dividend is paid, the Company shall grant you additional restricted stock units (and credit your Restricted Stock Unit Account for such additional restricted stock units) with a value equal to the amount per share of such cash dividend multiplied by the number of Restricted Stock Units credited to your Restricted Stock Unit Account as of the record date of such cash dividend (the “Dividend Amount”). The number of additional restricted stock units to be granted to you pursuant to this paragraph shall be determined by dividing the Dividend Amount by the closing stock price of the Company’s Common Stock on the dividend date. You shall not be eligible to receive such additional restricted stock units until such time as the Restricted Stock Units awarded pursuant to this Agreement vest, and you shall only receive such portion of such additional restricted stock units as shall be calculated based upon the portion of the Restricted Stock Units that actually vest pursuant to this Agreement.

assistant: Adjustments
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 (i) as required or expressly permitted by this Agreement, (ii) as may be necessary in order to give the notices to obtain any prior regulatory approval or the Approvals, (iii) as necessary to consult with attorneys, accountants, employees, or other advisors retained in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby, (iv) as required by court order or otherwise mandated by law or by Contract to which any Seller or Purchaser is a party, or (v) in connection with legally required disclosure documents prepared by any Seller, Purchaser or any Affiliate of either, no such Party shall issue any news release or other public notice or communication or otherwise make any disclosure to third parties concerning (x) this Agreement or (y) the transactions contemplated hereby, without the prior consent of the other Party and the Partnership (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed by the other Party or the Partnership). Even in cases where such prior consent is not required, Purchaser, on the one hand, and the Sellers, on the other hand, shall, to the extent legally permissible, promptly notify the other Party and the Partnership of such release in advance in order to provide a reasonable opportunity to the other Party and the Partnership to prepare a corresponding or other similar release or other action on a timely basis.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Board may amend this Plan as it shall deem advisable, subject to any requirement of stockholder approval required by Section 2.4 or by applicable law, rule or regulation, including Section 162(m) of the Code and any rule of the Nasdaq Global Select Market, or any other stock exchange on which shares of Common Stock are traded; provided , however , that no amendment may impair the rights of a holder of an outstanding award without the consent of such holder.

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: Buyer, at his risk, shall determine what, if any, filings and consents must be made and/or obtained prior to Closing to consummate the purchase and sale of the Shares. Buyer shall indemnify the Seller Indemnified Parties against any Losses incurred by such Seller Indemnified Parties by virtue of the failure to make and/or obtain any such filings or consents. Recognizing that the failure to make and/or obtain any filings or consents may cause Seller to incur Losses or otherwise adversely affect Seller, Buyer and Split-Off Subsidiary confirm that the provisions of this Section 8.6 will not limit Seller’s right to treat such failure as the failure of a condition precedent to Seller’s obligation to close pursuant to Article VI above.

assistant: Consents
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: attack). Each of these decisions upheld the challenged government action because it treated religion neutrally, and thus would not be viewed by a reasonable, informed observer as endorsing religion. In contrast, government runs afoul of the endorsement test and violates the Establishment Clause when it affirmatively supports religion on preferential terms. See Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 305-10, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (invalidating school policy of encouraging and sponsoring student-initiated, student-led prayers before high school football games because reasonable, informed observer would perceive school as endorsing religion); County of Allegheny v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 598-601, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (<HOLDING>); see also ACLU of N.J. v. Black Horse Pike Options: A. holding that display of unattended menorah in city hall park quite close to seat of government violated establishment clause because its combination alongside a secular holiday display did not cause a viewer to see the exhibit as a whole or as a unitary symbol B. holding that the display of a privately sponsored creche on the staircase of the courthouse violated the establishment clause because the display actually favored sectarian religious expression C. holding that county violated establishment clause by giving roman catholic group preferential access to display standalone creche depicting birth of jesus on main staircase of its seat of government because reasonable observer would believe countys action was meant to support and promote christianity D. holding that display of solitary semipermanent menorah in city hall park closely associated with seat of city government violates the establishment clause E. holding inter alia that the display of a creche at a country courthouse violated the establishment clause but noting that there is an obvious distinction between a creche display and references to god in the motto and the pledge

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that county violated establishment clause by giving roman catholic group preferential access to display standalone creche depicting birth of jesus on main staircase of its seat of government because reasonable observer would believe countys action was meant to support and promote christianity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: crime.” Bowie, 232 F.3d at 929. But all else must be analyzed under Rule 404(b). As a practical matter, it is unlikely that our holding will exclude much, if any, evidence that is currently admissible as background or “completes the story” evidence under the inextricably intertwined test. We reiterate that the purpose of Rule 404(b) is “simply to keep from the jury evidence that the defendant is prone to commit crimes or is otherwise a bad person, implying that the jury needn’t worry overmuch about the strength of the government’s evidence.” Taylor, 522 F.3d at 735-36. “No other use of prior crimes or other bad acts is forbidden by the rule,” and one proper use of such evidence “is the need to avoid confusing the jury.” Id. at 736 (emphasis added). See also Simmons, 679 F.2d at 1050 (<HOLDING>). Thus, most, if not all, other crimes evidence Options: A. holding testimony that would violate the confrontation clause if introduced for the truth may nonetheless be admissible if offered for the limited purpose of impeachment B. holding that rule 408 exclusion does not apply to evidence of a settlement agreement if it is offered for another purpose ie for a purpose other than to prove or disprove the validity of the claims that the agreement was meant to settle C. holding that evidence must be offered for a proper nonpropensity purpose that is at issue in the case D. recognizing that the purpose is to afford full information in connection with the estate in order that the necessary steps may be taken for its preservation E. recognizing that other crimes evidence may be admissible if offered for any nonpropensity purpose and identifying the need to provide necessary background information about the relationships among the players as a proper purpose

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that other crimes evidence may be admissible if offered for any nonpropensity purpose and identifying the need to provide necessary background information about the relationships among the players as a proper purpose
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: was its employee-—giving Dr. Wigfall a badge with the hospital’s name and providing the Bains with forms headed by the hospital’s name—HKH also failed to take any reasonable effort to disabuse the Bains of that notion. Unlike the hospitals in the cases discussed above, where the hospitals took some measure to inform patients that the emérgency-room doctors were hot employees of the hospital, HKH did nothing to indicate that Dr, Wigfall was not its employee. Additionally, courts finding sufficient evidence to support vicarious liability have emphasized the patient's reliance on the hospital, rather than on a particular doctor, to provide medical services, which is often the case in the emergency-room context. See, e.g., Porter v. Sisters of St.. Mary, 756 F.2d 669 (8th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); Barrett v. Samaritan Health Servs., 153 Ariz. Options: A. recognizing that generally services that benefit debtor are services that facilitate completion of a case B. holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed C. holding evidence of apparent authority insufficient where patient sought services of particular doctor rather than services of hospital generally D. holding that where hospital used balance billing its lien was unenforceable because the hospital had been paid in full for the services it provided to patient and there was consequently no debt to secure by the existence of the lien E. holding that a question of fact existed regarding whether the hospital held the doctor out as its agent if the hospital provided the doctor without explicitly informing the patient that the doctor was not its employee

assistant: The best answer is C. holding evidence of apparent authority insufficient where patient sought services of particular doctor rather than services of hospital generally
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: has shown no reversible error in that discussion, especially given that the district court upwardly departed because of Coleman’s under-represented criminal history. AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 . See United States v. Coleman, 212 Fed.Appx. 297 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (unpublished opinion). 2 . Id. at 298. 3 . Id. 4 . Id. at 299. 5 . Id. at 300. 6 . Gall v. United States, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). 7 . Id. at 597. 8 . Id. 9 . United States v. Griffith, 522 F.3d 607, 611-12 (5th Cir.2008). 10 . Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. 11 . See United States v. Moree, 928 F.2d 654 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 12 . See United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 Options: A. holding that privilege applies in similar factual circumstances B. holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances C. holding in circumstances similar to those here that the defendant had a right to allocute at resentencing D. holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones E. holding that denial of right to allocute was not prejudicial because district court sentenced defendant to low end of guideline range

assistant: The best answer is C. holding in circumstances similar to those here that the defendant had a right to allocute at resentencing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to testify regarding the victim’s credibility. In reaching our holding, we are mindful of the State’s alternative rationale for affirming on this point. Citing Rule 608(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence, the State argues that admission of Neighbors’s testimony was permissible because appellant attacked the credibility of the victim in his opening statement. We observe, however, that Rule 608(a) allows the credibility of a witness to be “supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation,” but “the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” Here, Neighbors’s testimony did not fall within the strictures of Rule 608(a), as it was not limited to the victim’s “character for truthfulness.” See Collins v. State, 11 Ark. App. 282, 669 S.W.2d 505 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we cannot say that the evidence was Options: A. holding admissible testimony of the victims daughter regarding a telephone call from the defendant to the victim hours before the victims death and the victims emotions following the telephone call where defendant claimed accident B. holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same C. holding that the lead detectives testimony that it is not unusual for victims or witnesses of crimes to be reluctant to cooperate with police did not improperly vouch for the truthfulness of victims testimony D. holding that employer controlled the victims will at least in part by using his position as the victims employer E. holding that the circuit court properly allowed the victims schoolteacher to testify as to the victims general reputation for truthfulness

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the circuit court properly allowed the victims schoolteacher to testify as to the victims general reputation for truthfulness
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: 796 F.2d 249, 251 (9th Cir.1986). Second, “[d]ue process challenges to deportation proceedings require a showing of prejudice to succeed.” Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d at 1226. and replace with We have also held that “[d]ue process challenges to deportation proceedings require a showing of prejudice to succeed.” Rodriguez-Lariz, 282 F.3d at 1226. 2. Op. at 1035 n. 6: Delete footnote in its entirety. 3. Op. at 1035, line 2 of Section III.B: Delete “fell outside the range of professional competence.” and replace with “constituted . 2052). and replace with Counsel’s unreasonable failure to investigate and present the factual and legal basis of Lin’s asylum claim would itself amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Cf. Escobar-Grijalva v. INS, 206 F.3d 1331, 1335 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), amended on other grounds by 213 F.3d 1221 Options: A. recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel B. holding a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel during a plea process C. holding that attorney who was unprepared to argue and unknowledgeable about the facts of an asylum case could not have provided effective assistance of counsel D. holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel E. holding that a defendants waiver was invalid where he was required to choose between proceeding with unprepared counsel or no counsel

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that attorney who was unprepared to argue and unknowledgeable about the facts of an asylum case could not have provided effective assistance of counsel
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the like — which do not implicate any violation of the law. And Plaintiff makes much to do about the alleged office romances between Stifel brokers. As was the case with her SOX claim, Plaintiffs complaints are not protected under the MWA just because Plaintiff finds her co-workers’ activities to be disturbing or troublesome. See Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897, 902 (Minn.1998) (dismissing firefighters’ whistleblower claims and finding that the reports that officers attended fire calls while intoxicated was not protected activity because “[w]hile we find such conduct reprehensible, if in fact it did occur, we can find no statute or rule that is violated by such conduct”); Yakubek v. Westbrooke Patio Homes Assoc., No. 97-506, 1997 WL 613667, at *4 (Minn.Ct.App. Oct. 7, 1997) (<HOLDING>); Nordling v. N. States Power Co., 478 N.W.2d Options: A. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity B. holding that summary judgment was appropriate where plaintiffs admissions in her deposition undermined her claims C. holding that raising a complaint about a violation of an internal policy is not considered protected activity D. holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor E. holding that employees reports of marijuana smoking in violation of the employ ers drug policy was not protected activity under the mwa and affirming the summary judgment dismissal of her claims

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that employees reports of marijuana smoking in violation of the employ ers drug policy was not protected activity under the mwa and affirming the summary judgment dismissal of her claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be served on the parties at the addresses set forth in Section 1.3 . Any such notices shall, unless otherwise provided herein, be given or served (a) by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage paid, certified and addressed to the party to be notified, with return receipt requested, (b) by overnight delivery using a nationally recognized overnight courier, (c) by personal delivery, or (d) by electronic mail addressed to the electronic mail address set forth in Section 1.3 for the party to be notified with a confirmation copy delivered by another method permitted under this Section 12.10 . Notice given in accordance herewith for all permitted forms of notice other than by electronic mail, shall be effective upon the earlier to occur of actual delivery to the address of the addressee or refusal of receipt by the addressee. Notice given by electronic mail in accordance herewith shall be effective upon the entrance of such electronic mail into the information processing system designated by the recipient's electronic mail address. Except for electronic mail notices as described above, no notice hereunder shall be effective if sent or delivered by electronic means. In no event shall this Agreement be altered, amended or modified by electronic mail or electronic record. A party's address may be changed by written notice to the other party; provided, however, that no notice of a change of address shall be effective until actual receipt of such notice. Copies of notices are for informational purposes only, and a failure to give or receive copies of any notice shall not be deemed a failure to give notice. Notices given by counsel to the Purchaser shall be deemed given by Purchaser and notices given by counsel to the Seller shall be deemed given by Seller.

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: When Units vest, shares of Company Stock equal to the number of vested Units shall be issued to the Grantee (i) within 60 days after the Vesting Date or (ii) if the Grantee has elected to defer Units as described in Section 5, within 60 days after the Deferred Payment Date in accordance with Section 5.

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: Obviously, in 1999 when Elliott filed his amended petition, Brooks had not yet been decided. However, in 2008, five years post-Brooks, the PCRA court granted Elliott permission to again amend his PCRA petition, and in 2009 Elliott did so. El we conclude that our holding in Brooks constituted a departure from prior law to the extent it held that the failure to meet personally with a capital defendant prior to trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, the PCRA court erred by granting Elliott relief based exclusively on Brooks, when Brooks was not available to appellate counsel to enable him to challenge on direct appeal trial counsel’s failure to conduct a pretrial in-person consultation with Elliott. See Commonwealth v. Carson, 590 Pa. 501, 913 A.2d 220, 260 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Having rejected the PCRA court’s conclusion Options: A. holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to advance novel and unaccepted theories B. holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim C. holding that trial counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to anticipate changes in law D. holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim E. holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failure to present cumulative evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to advance novel and unaccepted theories
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 Incremental Revolving Credit Lender hereby authorizes the Borrower, each other Loan Party and the Administrative Agent to enter into the Amendment No. 1 to Closing Date Intercreditor Agreement and Amendment No. 1 to Second Lien Security Agreement, in each case in the form as attached hereto as Annex I and Annex II .

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: Except as disclosed in the SEC Documents or as set forth on Schedule 4.9, there are no actions, suits, investigations, inquiries or proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company or any of its properties, nor has the Company received any written or oral notice of any such action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, which would have a Material Adverse Effect. No judgment, order, writ, injunction or decree or award has been issued by or, to the knowledge of the Company, requested of any court, arbitrator or governmental agency which would have a Material Adverse Effect. There has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the SEC involving the Company or any current or former director or officer of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The indemnity and contribution agreements contained in Sections 6 and 7 shall remain operative and in full force and effect regardless of (i) any termination of this Agreement or the Purchase Agreement, and (ii) the consummation of the sale or successive resales of the Registrable Securities.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ... weighs slightly against the government.” (citations, quotation, and alteration omitted)). Although Mr. Stanley’s argument that “[no] defense misbehavior or improper pleading filings” caused any delay, Aplt. Br. at 12, may be accurate, this argument ignores the fact that numerous defense motions were filed on his behalf and that those motions, by necessity, resulted in delay. He does not dispute the government’s statement that he filed 17 substantive pretrial motions and, at least initially, joined in pretrial motions filed by his code-fendants. Of course, Mr. Stanley was free to file any motions necessary for a vigorous defense, but the resultant delays do not weigh against the government in the speedy trial balancing. See United States v. Dirden, 38 F.3d 1131, 1138 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we note that Mr. Stanley’s refusal Options: A. holding delays caused by numerous defense pretrial motions and defendants motion to continue do not weigh against the government B. holding delays caused by defendants role in necessitating substitution of defense counsel once on the eve of trial are attributed to defendant C. holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second D. holding that the government did not waive an affirmative defense not pleaded in the answer because it raised the defense at a pragmatically sufficient time by listing the defense in the joint pretrial order E. holding that the clock was tolled from the day the lastarraigned defendant appeared before a judicial officer because at that time several defendants already had filed pretrial motions and pretrial motions of some type remained pending for over two years

assistant: The best answer is A. holding delays caused by numerous defense pretrial motions and defendants motion to continue do not weigh against the government
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of twenty years. Given the district court’s recognition of Barrientos-Maldonado’s “very serious” criminal history, his sentence of fifty-seven months, which is at the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, is not unreasonable. Barrientos-Maldonado also challenges his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds, arguing that any fact beyond the mere fact of conviction that justifies increased punishment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim is precluded by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir.2000). Contrary to Barrientos-Maldonado’s challenges, Almendarez-Torres remains good law. See Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d at 414 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reject BarrientosMaldonado’s Options: A. holding that almendareztorres remains the law after apprendi B. holding that almendareztorres is dispositive in rejecting a sixth amendment apprendi challenge to an 8 usc 1326b2 sentence enhancement C. holding that apprendi carved out an exception for prior convictions that specifically preserved the holding of almendareztorres D. holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi E. holding that almendareztorres remains good law after apprendi

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that almendareztorres is dispositive in rejecting a sixth amendment apprendi challenge to an 8 usc 1326b2 sentence enhancement
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 “channels of trade and marketing efforts are directed to a very educated and highly sophisticated group.” Appellees’ Br. at 30. Andrx also claims that this factor favors it “because the products are not in direct competition” since each should be prescribed under somewhat different circumstances. Id. The problem with Andrx’s approach is that neither customer sophistication nor the relationship between the goods is relevant to determining whether the goods are “marketed through the same channels and advertised through the same media.” Lapp, 721 F.2d at 463. There are other Lapp factors that take those issues into account. “[W]e [do] not discount the strength of plaintiffs case in one area because of weakness in another; we weight ] each factor separately.” Fisons, 30 F.3d at 476 (<HOLDING>). We find that the district court clearly erred Options: A. holding that the district court should have quashed an indictment without requiring the target to show prejudice because the district attorney improperly exercised control over the selection and excusal of grand jurors and the defendant brought this to the attention of the district court before trial B. holding that the district court erred in failing to properly charge the jury on defendants affirmative defenses C. holding district court erred in failing to count the similarities in channels of trade and target audience for plaintiff due to district courts view that other lapp factors weighed against plaintiff D. holding that district court erred in failing to consider evidence of secondary considerations E. holding that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the employers proffered evidence of legitimate business reasons for the plaintiffs termination

assistant: The best answer is C. holding district court erred in failing to count the similarities in channels of trade and target audience for plaintiff due to district courts view that other lapp factors weighed against plaintiff
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 execution, delivery and performance by the Company of this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents to which it is a party, the issuance of the Exchange Notes and the consummation by it of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby do not and will not: (i) conflict with or violate any provision of the Company’s or any Subsidiary’s certificate or certificates of incorporation, bylaws or other organizational or charter documents, (ii) conflict with, or constitute a default (or an event that with notice or lapse of time or both would become a default) under, result in the creation of any options, contracts, agreements, liens, security interests, or other encumbrances (“ Liens ”) upon any of the properties or assets of the Company or any Subsidiary, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation (with or without notice, lapse of time or both) of, any agreement, credit facility, debt or other instrument (evidencing a Company or Subsidiary debt or otherwise) or other understanding to which the Company or any Subsidiary is a party or by which any property or asset of the Company or any Subsidiary is bound or affected, or (iii) subject to the Required Approvals, conflict with or result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment, injunction, decree or other restriction of any court or governmental authority to which the Company or a Subsidiary is subject (including federal and state securities laws and regulations), or by which any property or asset of the Company or a Subsidiary is bound or affected; except in the case of each of clauses (ii) and (iii), such as could not have or reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse effect (a “ Material Adverse Effect ”).

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in forma pauperis standing when appealing dismissal of a § 2254 petition is determined subject to Fed. R.App. 24(a) rather than under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (applicable to civil rights claims). That Court has not addressed this issue for § 2241 petitions, however. 4 . The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued a number of opinions both pre- and post-AEDPA, noting that the remedy for a prisoner claiming a violation of due process in a prison disciplinary context is a federal writ of habeas corpus. See, e.g., Stone-Bey v. Barnes, 120 F.3d 718, 721 (7th Cir.1997) (following Balisok and noting that prisoner could have filed a federal writ); Shephard v. Duckworth, No. 96-1890, 1997 WL 9774 at n. 2 (7th Cir. Dec.12, 1996) (<HOLDING>); Evans v. McBride, 94 F.3d 1062, 1063-64 (7th Options: A. holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings B. holding descamps and mathis divisibility analysis applies in immigration proceedings nationwide to the same extent that it applies in criminal sentencing proceedings C. holding 2254 applies to administrative proceedings D. holding clisby applies to 2255 proceedings E. holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings

assistant: The best answer is C. holding 2254 applies to administrative proceedings
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: Aff. of Maria Grancio ¶ 6. For its part, the United States does not dispute that Mrs. Grancio did not have actual knowledge of the “critical fact” of DeVec-chio and Favo’s alleged involvement until 2004; instead, it cites to media coverage and court cases addressing the relationship between Scarpa and DeVecchio. Thus, the sole dispute concerning the accrual of Mrs. Grancio’s FTCA claim is the ultimate question of whether publicity cited by the United States would have put a reasonable person on inquiry notice prior to January 6, 2004, that DeVecchio and Favo played a role in Grancio’s murder. Because the facts relevant to this issue are undisputed and already in the record, there is no need to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Cf. Chang v. United States, 250 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Although the Second Circuit has not spoken on Options: A. holding that contested factual issues in 2255 cases must be decided on the basis of an evidentiary hearing not affidavits B. holding that district court acted within its discretion in deciding nonfrivolous 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing C. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion D. holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on 2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit E. holding that district court has discretion when deciding to convert a defendants motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that district court acted within its discretion in deciding nonfrivolous 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts (including counterparts executed by less than all parties hereto), each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. A signed copy of this Amendment delivered by PDF, facsimile, e-mail or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of this Amendment.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the laws of the state of california will govern these terms of service , as well as any claim that might arise between you and us , without regard to conflict of law provisions .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term or provision of this Agreement is to any extent held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining terms of this Agreement will not be affected thereby, but each term and provision of this Agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York and shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of Borrower, Plymouth REIT and each Property Guarantor and shall inure to the benefit of Lenders and their respective successors and assigns. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you are expressly prohibited from monetizing any user videos embodying sr samples within the service or on any third party service ( e.g. , you may not claim and monetize a ugv on facebook ) .

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: on the partnership factors. Rule 276 provides in part, “When an instruction, question, or definition is requested and the provisions of the law have been complied with and the trial judge refuses the same, the judge shall endorse thereon ‘Refused,’ and sign the same officially.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 276. JP Morgan’s proposed charge does not contain any such endorsement. An endorsement is not the only means of obtaining a ruling, but if there is no endorsement, the record must establish that the trial court otherwise ruled on the request, expressly or implicitly, for potential error to be preserved. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Marshall v. Harris Cnty. Mun. Util. Dist. No. 358, No. 01-07-00910-CV, 2011 WL 286167, at *11—12 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 20, 2011, pet. denied) (mem.op.) (<HOLDING>); Coates v. Coates, No. 05-08-00440-CV, 2009 WL Options: A. holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court B. holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge C. holding appellant could not complain of jurys failure to answer question because the charge instructed the jury not to do so based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction D. holding that because trial court actually gave part of a jury charge that appellant claimed was improperly omitted and because remainder of courts charge adequately defined one of the legal terms at issue the courts jury charge taken as a whole was not misleading and did not constitute reversible error E. holding that although appellant filed a proposed jury charge appellant did not preserve error because trial court did not endorse proposed charge and appellant did not call trial courts attention to the portions of the proposed charge that were complained about on appeal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that although appellant filed a proposed jury charge appellant did not preserve error because trial court did not endorse proposed charge and appellant did not call trial courts attention to the portions of the proposed charge that were complained about on appeal