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: of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified.” (emphasis added)). Third, Mr. Frederick offers nothing to rebut the government’s statement to the District Court that it had fully complied with its obligations under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), so we would be hard-pressed to say that the District Court abused its discretion by relying on those representations as true. Fourth, the Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) violations alleged by Mr. Frederick involved criminal activities inextricably intertwined with the criminal conspiracy and therefore not governed by the requirements for admission of evidence under Rule 404(b). See United States v. Foster, 889 F.2d 1049, 1054-55 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Mr. Frederick impeached the Options: A. holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators B. holding that defendant was not entitled to buyerseller instruction in drug conspiracy prosecution given evidence that defendant played numerous roles in the conspiracy and that massive amounts of cocaine were involved C. holding that in certain circumstances where a defendant is convicted of a charge alleging a conspiracy to distribute one drug or another he must be sentenced as if the conviction were only for a conspiracy involving the drug that triggers the lowest statutory sentencing range D. holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute E. holding that evidence of specific uncharged drug trafficking offenses were not extrinsic to prosecution for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine where the events occurred within the time period of the alleged conspiracy and were demonstrative of the conspirators conduct

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that evidence of specific uncharged drug trafficking offenses were not extrinsic to prosecution for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine where the events occurred within the time period of the alleged conspiracy and were demonstrative of the conspirators conduct
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 no event shall any draft of this Agreement create any obligation or liability, it being understood that this Agreement shall be effective and binding only when a counterpart hereof has been executed and delivered by each party hereto. Seller shall have the right to discontinue negotiations and withdraw any draft of this Agreement at any time prior to the full execution and delivery of this Agreement by each party hereto. Purchaser assumes the risk of all costs and expenses incurred by Purchaser in any negotiations or due diligence investigations undertaken by Purchaser with respect to the Property.

assistant: Effectiveness
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 First Amendment and all other agreements and documents executed and/or delivered in connection herewith have been prepared through the joint efforts of all of the parties hereto. Neither the provisions of this First Amendment or any such other agreements and documents nor any alleged ambiguity therein shall be interpreted or resolved against any party on the ground that such party or its counsel drafted this First Amendment or such other agreements and documents, or based on any other rule of strict construction. Each of the parties hereto represents and declares that such party has carefully read this First Amendment and all other agreements and documents executed in connection therewith, and that such party knows the contents thereof and signs the same freely and voluntarily. The parties hereto acknowledge that they have been represented by legal counsel of their own choosing in negotiations for and preparation of this First Amendment and all other agreements and documents executed in connection herewith and that each of them has read the same and had their contents fully explained by such counsel and is fully aware of their contents and legal effect.

assistant: Construction
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: Judge. The defendant, Timothy Bailey, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the house where he resided. As we conclude that the investigatory stop of the vehicle Bailey was in was based upon reasonable well-founded suspicion, see Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla.1993), and that the written consent to search obtained from Bailey was freely and voluntarily given, see United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Barnett, 989 F.2d 546, Options: A. holding that custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate a consent to search B. holding that once initial consent to search has been given passive acquiescence broadens the scope of search C. recognizing that custody while not determinative in itself places a heavy burden in showing consent was voluntarily given and noting that custody when coupled with other coercive factors will normally necessitate the conclusion that the consent is not effective D. holding that warrantless search of defendants vehicle was legal because defendants consent was voluntary even through he was in police custody at the time of giving consent E. holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate a consent to search
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: amounts in the budget process that were insufficient to fund payments due local governments as stated in the Act. This failure to request sufficient funds was a breach of the alleged implied contract, plaintiff believes, citing the General Accounting Office on the issue of statutory formulae: ‘Where allocation of funds is based on a statutory formula, the formula itself establishes the obligation to each recipient and the obligation occurs by operation of law.” GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (“GAO Redbook”) at 7-34. Greenlee also points to eases in which the full appropriation for a government obligation was not available, yet the obligation itself remained. The plaintiff had recourse to the courts for the difference. See, e.g., New York Airways, 369 F.2d at 748 (<HOLDING>). The elements of an implied-in-fact contract Options: A. holding that the 2005 amendment was a substantive change B. recognizing that four reasons for granting a rule 59e motion are manifest errors of law or fact newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence manifest injustice and an intervening change in controlling law C. holding that change in state substantive case law does not constitute the removal of an impediment D. holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances E. holding that congress had the power to amend an obligation but any intent to change substantive law in a subsequent appropriation must be clearly manifest

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that congress had the power to amend an obligation but any intent to change substantive law in a subsequent appropriation must be clearly manifest
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 transfer of the cartridge cases and live round in this case, and the government did not offer the property log as an exhibit or present other evidence suggesting that the ballistics material was documented or tracked in this manner. In ruling that the bállistics material was admissible after hearing Mr. Turner’s testimony, the trial court determined it was sufficient that these items had, at some point, been “stored in a police property office,” because “the presumption here” is that the office “preserve[s] the property.” But the trial court overlooked the government’s failure to present any evidence explaining when the police property office took possession of the ballistics material or how the material got there. Cf. Gilmore v. United States, 742 A.2d 862, 872 (D.C.1999) (<HOLDING>). Effectively, the trial court gave the Options: A. holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal B. holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial C. holding defendants failure to object timely waives its right to challenge expert report D. holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting a defendants chain of custody challenge despite an officers plainly careless handling of an object recovered from the crime scene and his inability to locate the object for eight months because the officer eventually found the object in his evidence locker and was able to account for its whereabouts during the entire time period

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting a defendants chain of custody challenge despite an officers plainly careless handling of an object recovered from the crime scene and his inability to locate the object for eight months because the officer eventually found the object in his evidence locker and was able to account for its whereabouts during the entire time period
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Short agrees that he will forever refrain from disparaging the personal and/or professional reputation of the Company and the Released Parties, and RBT agrees that it will not knowingly permit the disparagement of Short’s personal and/or professional reputation by any officer, director, or employee of the Company. The Parties understand and agree that this covenant not to disparage applies to both written and oral comments, as well as any comments posted on any social media or other Internet site. Nothing in this Section 11 will preclude the Parties from fairly and lawfully competing with one another should such competition occur in the future, or from testifying honestly should such testimony be required in the future.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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 constitutes and expresses the entire understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, inducements or conditions, whether express or implied, oral or written. Neither this Agreement nor any portion or provision hereof may be changed, waived or amended orally or in any manner other than by an agreement in writing signed by Senior Agent, Subordinated Creditor and the Loan Parties.

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: months of imprisonment as an upward departure. The court explicitly stated that § 5K2.0(a)(2)(B) permits the departure, explaining that “I think that the upward departure is warranted in this case.” Our review will therefore focus on whether this adjustment was a proper departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(2)(B). 1. Evaluation of whether U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(2)(B) or § 2K2J(b 2.0(a)(2)(B) departure was appropriate here because the evidence does not show that Freeman’s planned robbery of the undercover agent was necessarily subject to the § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement. An enhancement pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6) requires that the firearm possessed in connection with another felony be connected to the firearm that is the subject of the underlying firearm-possession charge. Hoiuse, 478 F.3d at 733 (<HOLDING>). The record here does not show that the Options: A. holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used B. holding that a defendant possessed a firearm in connection with a crime when the firearm was kept in a car across the street from where the defendant was selling drugs C. holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense D. holding that the application of the enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense is proper only if there is a clear connection between the firearm that was used in the other offense and the one that was used in the offense of conviction E. holding that the enhancement applied where the defendant possessed a firearm in connection with possessing methamphetamine

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the application of the enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense is proper only if there is a clear connection between the firearm that was used in the other offense and the one that was used in the offense of conviction
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 highly questionable credibility, and the circumstantial evidence was far less convincing than the Marshall circumstantial evidence. Hands’s case turned entirely upon which biased witnesses the jury chose to believe. Evidence that tended to erode Hands’s credibility and to prejudice the jury against him, therefore, could have had a substantial — perhaps overpowering — impact on the jury’s deliberations. See United States v. Crutchfield, 26 F.3d 1098, 1103 (11th Cir.1994) (reversing conviction on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct where “[t]he prejudicial effect of [the] misconduct cannot be disputed, as this case turned largely on the jury’s credibility determinations of the several witnesses who testified”); see also United States v. Sanchez, 176 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Watson, 171 F.3d 695, 700-01 Options: A. holding that the cumulative effect of several incidents of prosecutorial misconduct that undercut defendants credibility was not harmless error noting that defendant to go free needed to persuade jury that he was credible and that the prosecution witnesses who testified in exchange for leniency were not B. holding that in light of defendants attack on credibility of states witnesses prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument when he implied states witnesses were credible C. holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt D. holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial E. holding that evidence consisting of the testimony of three witnesses who each had motives to lie was not overwhelming and that prosecutorial misconduct therefore was not harmless error

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the cumulative effect of several incidents of prosecutorial misconduct that undercut defendants credibility was not harmless error noting that defendant to go free needed to persuade jury that he was credible and that the prosecution witnesses who testified in exchange for leniency were not
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: submitted a written curative instruction and asked the court to include it in the court’s final jury instructions: The Cincinnati Insurance Company was mentioned by Mr. Gratzianna. The Cincinnati Insurance Company does not insure Mr. Whitaker or Milford Towing or the Plaintiff. There is no evidence before you that the defendants or plaintiff have or do not have insurance. Whether such insurance exists has no bearing upon any issue in this case. You must not discuss or consider it for any purpose. The district court characterized Gratzi-anna’s comment as not “even a foul tip. It was just a loose comment that I think right now is better off left quiet without any further instruction to highlight ... the comment itself.” The court agreed to address the iss 1565-66, 1568-69 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). This Court held long ago that, when a trial Options: A. holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given B. holding that failure to comply with state contemporaneous objection rule bars federal review absent a showing of cause and prejudice C. holding that any misstatements of law during closing argument are presumed cured by final instruction D. holding mistrial unwarranted where contemporaneous objection was made to single mention of insurance and court gave cautionary instruction E. holding no prejudice occurred where party made contemporaneous objection to brief remark about insurance during closing argument and court gave cautionary instruction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding no prejudice occurred where party made contemporaneous objection to brief remark about insurance during closing argument and court gave cautionary instruction
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: Enter into any transaction of any kind with any Affiliate of Borrower, whether or not in the ordinary course of business, other than on fair and reasonable terms substantially as favorable to Borrower or such Subsidiary as would be obtainable by Borrower or such Subsidiary at the time in a comparable arm’s length transaction with a Person other than an Affiliate, provided that the foregoing restriction shall not apply to transactions between or among Borrower and any Guarantor or between and among Guarantors.

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: Under section 22.011(c), a “child” is a person “younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor.” Id. 22.011(c)(1). A “spouse” means a person who is legally married to another. Id. 22.011(c)(2). Legal marriage in Texas requires a marriage license or proof of an informal marriage. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. §§ 2.001(b), 2.401 (Vernon 2006). A marriage license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 2.001(b). An informal marriage is solely recognized between a man and a woman. Id. § 2.401. Here, because the State clearly showed that J.B. is a male and that appellant is male, the evidence is legally sufficient to prove that appellant was not married to J.B. See Jacques v. State, 579 S.W.2d 247, 248-49 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (<HOLDING>); Henson v. State, 638 S.W.2d 504, 505 Options: A. holding that money invested in voluntary investment plan during marriage was marital property because it was property acquired during marriage B. holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred C. recognizing that basis for deportation was aliens misrepresentation about his marriage not the validity of his marriage D. holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage E. holding that appellants substantive rights were not prejudiced by omission in indictment that complainant was not the spouse of the defendant because it had been clearly shown that both appellant and complainant were male and that they could not have obtained marriage license nor entered into commonlaw marriage

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that appellants substantive rights were not prejudiced by omission in indictment that complainant was not the spouse of the defendant because it had been clearly shown that both appellant and complainant were male and that they could not have obtained marriage license nor entered into commonlaw marriage
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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 377 U.S. 263 84 S.Ct. 1235 12 L.Ed.2d 288 Fred S. CALHOUN et al., Petitioners,v.A. C. LATIMER et al. No. 623. Argued March 31, 1964. Decided May 25, 1964. Constance B. Motley, New York City, for petitioners. Burke Marshall, Houston, Tex., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. A. C. Latimer, Atlanta, Ga., for respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 During the argument of this case, counsel for respondents stated that after the decree below was entered the Atlanta Board of Education adopted additional provisions authorizing free transfers with certain limitations in the city's high schools. At our invitation both parties filed supplemental memoranda dealing with this aspect of the case. It appears therefrom that since the argument the Atlanta Board of Education on April 8, 1964, adopted and promulgated a new formal resolution stating the present policy of the Board and the factors it will consider in making initial assignments of pupils and in permitting transfers for the school year 1964-1965. Petitioners deny that this resolution meets the constitutional standards and assert that with respect to students in the elementary schools the plan will not achieve desegregation until sometime in the 1970's. 2 In light of the d velopments at and since the argument, we deem it appropriate that the nature and effect of the Board's resolution of April 8, 1964, be appraised by the District Court in a proper evidentiary hearing. To this end we vacate the judgment and remand the cause to the District Court for further proceedings. 3 Although Atlanta's commendable effort to effect desegregation is recognized, the District Court on remand must, of course, test the entire Atlanta plan by the considerations discussed in Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 529, 83 S.Ct. 1314, 1316, 10 L.Ed.2d 529; Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683, 83 S.Ct. 1405, 10 L.Ed.2d 632; and Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 84 S.Ct. 1226, 12 L.Ed.2d 256, decided subsequent to the District Court's approval of the plan. In Goss, supra, 373 U.S. at 689, 83 S.Ct. at 1409, we said: 4 '(W)e are not unmindful of the deep-rooted problems involved. Indeed, it was consideration for the multifarious local difficulties and 'variety of obstacles' which might arise in this transition that led this Court eight years ago to frame its mandate in Brown in such language as 'good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date' and 'all deliberate speed.' Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S., at 300, 301, 75 S.Ct. (753), at 756, (99 L.Ed. 1083). Now, however, eight years after this decree was rendered and over nine years after the first Brown decision, the context in which we must interpret and apply this language to plans for desegregation has been significantly altered. Compare Watson v. City of Memphis, supra.' 5 Vacated and remanded.

assistant: 2
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) The Credit Parties will execute any and all further documents, financing statements, agreements and instruments, and take all such further actions (including the filing and recording of financing statements, fixture filings, mortgages, deeds of trust and other documents), which may be required under any Applicable Law, or which the Collateral Agent may reasonably request, in order to grant, preserve, protect and perfect the validity and priority of the security interests created or intended to be created by any Credit Document, all at the sole cost and expense of the Borrower.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: protections afforded to the debtors by the Bankruptcy Code and the automatic stay, specifically because the Adversary Proceeding will determine whether the debtors were in default and thus whether Bank of America is entitled to recover from the guarantors. This, the court believes, is precisely what the "unusual circumstances” exception encompasses. 10 . Bank of America contends that with respect to the "unusual circumstances” exception, the debtors were required to demonstrate "unusual circumstances” as well as satisfy the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the exception in a way that supports Bank of America's position. See Solidus Networks, Inc. v. Excel Innovations, Inc. (In re Excel Innovations), 502 F.3d 1086, 1096 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s Options: A. holding that the unusual circumstances exception was not a separate basis for staying nondebtor litigation from the traditional preliminary injunction standard B. holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success C. holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified D. holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction E. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the unusual circumstances exception was not a separate basis for staying nondebtor litigation from the traditional preliminary injunction standard
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment No. 1 represents the entire agreement and understanding concerning the subject matter hereof among the parties hereto, and supersedes all other prior agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions, representations, warranties, commitments, proposals, offers and contracts concerning the subject matter hereof, whether oral or written.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notices and all other communications contemp l ated by this A g reement s hall be in writing and sha ll be deemed to have been duly given when personally de li vered or when mailed by U.S. registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and po s ta g e prepaid. In the case of the Executive, mailed notices shall be addressed to Executive at the home address , which E xecutive most recently communicated to the Company in writing. In the case of the Company, mailed notices shall be addressed to its corporate headquarters, and all notices s hall b e d i r e cted t o the attention of its Chief Operating Officer.

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: "Confidential Information" of a disclosing party ("Discloser") means the following, regardless of its form and including copies made by the receiving party ("Recipient"), whether the Recipient becomes aware of it before or after the date of this Agreement: except where that information is:  known to the Recipient free of any obligation to keep it confidential; or

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Any action brought by either party against the other concerning the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall be brought only in the state courts of California or in the federal courts located in that state and the county of Orange County. The parties to this Agreement hereby irrevocably waive any objection to jurisdiction and venue of any action instituted hereunder and shall not assert any defense based on lack of jurisdiction or venue or based upon forum non conveniens . The Company and Buyer waive trial by jury. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any suit, action, or proceeding in connection with this Agreement or any other Document by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any other manner permitted by law.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may not be amended or modified, nor may any provision hereof be waived, except in a written instrument duly executed and delivered by the Transferor and Transferee and acknowledged and agreed to by the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: all of the elements of the crime, which appellant challenges beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, we must keep in mind that the credibility of witnesses and the wei t into Burger’s occupied car at close range, causing a bullet to narrowly miss Mandy McConnell who was sitting in the back seat. (N.T., at 24.) It can be inferred that appellant intended to cause serious bodily injury to Mandy because the bullet he fired into the car missed her by only three inches. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 559 Pa. 229, 739 A.2d 1023 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 829, 121 S.Ct. 79, 148 L.Ed.2d 41 (2000) (finding sufficient evidence presented to convict appellant of aggravated assault where appellant shot at and narrowly missed the victim); see also Commonwealth v. Woods, 710 A.2d 626 (Pa.Super.1998) (<HOLDING>). Further, testimony indicates that when Mandy Options: A. holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances B. holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and from all circumstances C. holding intent may be inferred from large amount of marijuana D. holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence E. holding specific intent to harm may be inferred from the circumstances and that finding is a matter for the jury

assistant: The best answer is E. holding specific intent to harm may be inferred from the circumstances and that finding is a matter for the jury
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 New Mexico and do not own any real or personal property in New Mexico. The only contact they have had with New Mexico is to have been guarantors on a loan agreement executed in California, which was entered into pursuant to an agreement which Deerfield and First City had already worked out in New Mexico. The Hiatts “stepped into a business arrangement which [Deerfield] and [ d.2d 89 (1976); accord United Buying Group, Inc. v. Coleman, 296 N.C. 510, 251 S.E.2d 610, 616 (1979) (“The mere act of signing [a guaranty in favor of a resident of the forum] or endorsement does not in and of itself constitute a sufficient contact upon which to base in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident.”); Basic Food Indus., Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 94 Nev. 111, 575 P.2d 934, 936 (1978) (<HOLDING>). The FDIC urges us to find that the Hiatts are Options: A. holding that when nonresident defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts texas courts exercise of personal jurisdiction will not comport with fair play and substantial justice only in rare cases B. holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor C. holding that being a guarantor along with making payments in forum state is an insufficient basis to invoke personal jurisdiction D. holding that when no more appears than that the guarantor has mechanically executed the guaranty and mailed it back to the forum finding personal jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice E. holding that being a guarantor alone is an insufficient basis to invoke personal jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when no more appears than that the guarantor has mechanically executed the guaranty and mailed it back to the forum finding personal jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
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 provided in 2(b)-(e) below, Performance Units will vest, to the extent earned, on the last day of the Plan Period, and payment shall be made on or before March 30 in the calendar year that begins immediately after the end of the Plan Period.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the APA, substantive rules are rules that create law. These rules usually implement existing law, im posing general, extrastatutory obligations pursuant to authority properly delegated by Congress. Interpretative rules merely clarify or explain existing law or regulations and go “ ‘to what the administrative officer thinks the statute or regulation means.’ ” Id. at 783 (citations omitted). See also New York v. Lyng, 829 F.2d 346 (2d Cir.1987) (ruling that Secretary of Agriculture’s determination that restaurant allowance for food stamp recipients was income was an interpretive rule exempt from the notice and comment requirement of the APA); Chula Vista City School Dist. v. Bennett, 824 F.2d 1573 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1042, 108 S.Ct. 774, 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988) (<HOLDING>). FNBL suggests that the proper method for Options: A. recognizing application of sovereign immunity to school districts B. holding that a county ordinance imposing an impact fee on new residential construction to be used for new school facilities did not constitute an unauthorized delegation of power from the county to the school board because the fundamental policy decisions were made by the county and the discretion of the school board was sufficiently limited C. holding that a 50 rule used by the secretary of education to evaluate applications for impact aid by local school districts was not subject to the notice and comment procedures of the apa because it was an interpretive rule describing the agencys view of the meaning of a statute D. holding that exhaustion was not required under a federal education statute where the gravamen of the complaint was not that the plaintiff had been denied the type of education the statute guarantees and hence the relief sought was not available through the statutory appeals process E. holding that the postal service was not required to follow notice and comment rulemaking procedures

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a 50 rule used by the secretary of education to evaluate applications for impact aid by local school districts was not subject to the notice and comment procedures of the apa because it was an interpretive rule describing the agencys view of the meaning of a statute
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: Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary (other than Section 14.02 ), the foregoing defense, release, indemnity and hold harmless obligations shall not apply to, and each Party shall be solely responsible for, all expenses, including due diligence expenses, incurred by it to enter into, and consummate the transactions contemplated by, this Agreement.

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: at *1 (D.Mont. Feb. 17, 2006). 2 . "A request for an extension under Rule 6(b)(1)(B) should be made upon formal application for an order in compliance with the provisions of Rule 7(b)(1) relating to motions. Because Rule 7(b)(1)(B) requires that the application state with particularity the grounds therefore, the movant must allege the facts constituting excusable neglect; the mere assertion of excusable neglect unsupported by facts has been held to be insufficient.” Inst. for Policy Studies, 246 F.R.D. at 383. 3 . The Court notes that Ms. Whitney’s Opposition to Motion to [sic] Defendant’s Motion for an Order for Plaintiffs Independent Medical Examination ("IME Opp.”) [# 19] is untimely and therefore must be stricken. See Smith v. Dist. of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450, 457 (D.C.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The Motion for an IME was filed on May 2, Options: A. holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion B. holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorneys fees because plaintiffs rule 54d2 motion was untimely and they had failed to show excusable neglect that would justify extending the time they had to file such a motion C. holding that it is an abuse of the courts discretion to consider an untimely filing in the absence of a motion to enlarge demonstrating excusable neglect D. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony E. holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that it is an abuse of the courts discretion to consider an untimely filing in the absence of a motion to enlarge demonstrating excusable neglect
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 SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5-1401 OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY SUBMITS TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE NON-EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS SITTING IN NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AMENDMENT, ANY OTHER FACILITY DOCUMENT, ANY OTHER DOCUMENT DELIVERED PURSUANT HERETO OR THERETO, OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY WAIVES ANY OBJECTION BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS THE MAINTENANCE OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING AND CONSENTS TO THE GRANTING OF SUCH LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RELIEF AS IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY SUCH COURT.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment shall become effective as of the Effective Date upon (i) the execution and deliver of this Amendment by each of the parties hereto, and (ii) payment in full by Borrower to Administrative Agent of the Amendment Fee (as hereinafter defined).

assistant: Effectiveness
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: decisions of a magistrate judge is one instance we have held waiver of appellate review results. United States v. Hernandez-Rivas, 348 F.3d 595, 598 (7th Cir.2003) (citation omitted); United States v. Brown, 79 F.3d 1499, 1503-04 (7th Cir.1996) (collecting authority); United States v. Johnson, 859 F.2d 1289, 1294 (7th Cir.1988) (citation omitted). The purpose of this waiver rule is to promote efficiency between the district and appellate courts, so that district courts have the opportunity to nip errors in the bud without requiring them to conduct plenary reviews of proceedings supervised by magistrate judges. See Hernandez-Rivas, 348 F.3d at 598 (citing Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 147, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985)); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1017-18 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); see also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d Options: A. holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial B. holding that the waiver in two previous contracts was insufficient to support waiver of the contract at issue in that appeal C. holding the rationale of thomas requires waiver to apply to each issue not included in an objection D. holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case E. holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the rationale of thomas requires waiver to apply to each issue not included in an objection
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement may be executed by facsimile or scanned signature and any such facsimile or scanned signature shall be deemed to be an original signature for all purposes hereof.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement, and supersedes all prior written agreements, arrangements, communications and understandings and all prior and contemporaneous oral agreements, arrangements, communications and understandings, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to or shall confer upon any Person other than the parties hereto and, as applicable, their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and permitted assigns any legal or equitable right, benefit or remedy of any nature under or by reason of this Agreement, except that Merger Sub and Merger LLC shall be express third-party beneficiaries of this 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Initial Purchasers, the Issuers and their respective successors and legal representatives, and nothing expressed or mentioned in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to give any other person any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect of this Agreement, or any provisions herein contained; this Agreement and all conditions and provisions hereof being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of such persons and for the benefit of no other person except that (i) the indemnities of the Issuers contained in Section 9 of this Agreement shall also be for the benefit of the directors, officers and employees of the Initial Purchasers and any person or persons who control the Initial Purchasers within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act or Section 20 of the Exchange Act and (ii) the indemnities of the Initial Purchasers contained in Section 9 of this Agreement shall also be for the benefit of the directors of the Issuers, their officers and any person or persons who control the Issuers within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act or Section 20 of the Exchange Act. No purchaser of Notes from the Initial Purchasers will be deemed a successor because of such purchase.

assistant: Successors