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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Immediately after giving effect to the Transactions on the Closing Date, the Company and its Subsidiaries (on a consolidated basis) (a) have property with fair value greater than the total amount of their debts and liabilities, contingent (it being understood that the amount of contingent liabilities at any time shall be computed as the amount that, in light of all the facts and circumstances existing at such time, represents the amount that can reasonably be expected to become an actual or matured liability), subordinated or otherwise, (b) have assets with present fair salable value not less than the amount that will be required to pay their liability on their debts as they become absolute and matured, (c) will be able to pay their debts and liabilities, subordinated, contingent or otherwise, as they become absolute and matured and (d) are not engaged in business or a transaction, and are not about to engage in business or a transaction, for which their property would constitute an unreasonably small capital.

assistant: Solvency
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: alter the circuit court boundaries are Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.512 (11th Circuit), Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.524 (23rd Circuit), Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.527 (26th Circuit), Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.535 (34th Circuit), Mich. Comp. Laws 600.549b (50th Circuit), and Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.549e (53rd Circuit). 2 . This summary affirmance admittedly "extends no further than the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions,” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 784 n. 5, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983), but because Wells squarely held that the plaintiff’s cause of action did not exist as a matter of law, the Supreme Court’s affir-mance of that holding makes it binding precedent until revisited by the Supreme Court. See Smith v. Boyle, 144 F.3d 1060, 1061 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Kuhn v. Miller, No. 98-2012, 1999 WL 1000850, Options: A. holding that discrimination based on religion is subjected to strict scrutiny whether a claim arises under the establishment clause the free exercise clause of equal protection clause B. holding that the equal protection clause forbids prosecutors from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race C. recognizing that wells precludes any oneperson onevote claim under the equal protection clause when challenging judicial elections D. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause E. recognizing harassment claim under equal protection clause based on sexual orientation

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that wells precludes any oneperson onevote claim under the equal protection clause when challenging judicial elections
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: if you are a resident of the united states or canada , these terms and the relationship between you and evernote ( including any dispute ) shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the state of california , united states of america , as they apply to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within california between california residents , without regard to its 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is the plan administrator, Contromatics, not the insurers, who has the duty of distributing the required summary plan description (“S.P.D.”) to all insureds. 29 U.S.C. § 1021(a). In Moran v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 872 F.2d 296 (9th Cir.1989), for example, the court held that the insurer who was not the plan administrator, did not bear the fiduciary burden of S.P.D. distribution. Similarly in Maxa v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., 972 F.2d 980, 985-86 (8th Cir.1992), the court held that ERISA did not “require that the appellee had a duty individually to warn ... each and all of the members of the plans which it insured that their benefits would be reduced according to the plan’s coordination of benefits provision____” Accord Stahl v. Tony’s Bldg. Materials, 875 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Yet Iwans does not contest that the primary Options: A. holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language B. holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans C. holding that erisa employee benefits plan was subrogated to all claims by covered individual against third party for all payments made by the plan D. holding that summary plan description and not individual notification is all that erisa requires of plans insurer E. holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that summary plan description and not individual notification is all that erisa requires of plans insurer
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: During the Term, the Executive shall be permitted to participate in any group life, hospitalization or disability insurance plans, health programs, pension and profit sharing plans and similar benefits that may be available to other senior executives of the Company generally, on the same terms as may be applicable to such other senior executives, in each case to the extent that the Executive is eligible under the terms of such plans or programs. During the Term, the Company shall maintain customary liability insurance for trustees and officers and list the Executive as a covered officer.

assistant: Benefits
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: Schedule 8.22 sets forth a listing of all insurance maintained by the Company and its Subsidiaries as of the Effective Date, with the amounts insured (and any deductibles) set forth therein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: light of the statute’s language, structure, and legislative history. If such inferences of intent are not present, we must conclude that “ ‘the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy’” does not exist. Thompson, 484 U.S. at 179, 108 S.Ct. at 516 (quoting Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of America, 451 U.S. 77, 94, 101 S.Ct. 1571, 1582, 67 L.Ed.2d 750 (1981)). “Courts seldom imply a private right of action where none appears in the statute, for ‘a strong presumption exists against [their] creation....’” Statland v. American Airlines, Inc., 998 F.2d 539, 540 (7th Cir.1993) (quoting West Allis Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Bowen, 852 F.2d 251, 254 (7th Cir.1988)); see also Louisiana Landmarks Soc’y, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 85 F.3d 1119, 1123 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Stowell v. Ives, 976 F.2d 65, 70 n. 5 (1st Options: A. recognizing added presumption B. recognizing this presumption C. recognizing this rule D. recognizing a presumption of reasonableness E. recognizing that this court applies an appellate presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing this presumption
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 provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect, the validity and enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby and the parties will attempt to agree upon a valid and enforceable provision that is a reasonable substitute therefor, and upon so agreeing, shall incorporate such substitute provision in this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See Tucker v. State, 726 So.2d 768 (Fla.1999); State v. Hargrove, 694 So.2d 729 (Fla.1997); State v. Tripp, 642 So.2d 728 (Fla.1994). Because, the jury verdict did not specifically incorporate a finding of actual possession needed to sustain the imposition of the minimum mandatory, we reverse the three-year minimum mandatory sentence and remand for imposition of a sentence under the criminal punishment code. Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing. CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur. 1 . An information does not have to refer to section 775.087 for the enhancement to apply, see Bryant v. State, 386 So.2d 237 (Fla.1980), as long as it alleges the use of a firearm, see Staton v. State, 636 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). See also Matthews v. State, 774 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), review denied, 779 So.2d 272 Options: A. holding that sentence enhancement for crimes committed against law enforcement officers may be applied when information charges qualifying offense information does not need to recite enhancement statute B. holding that defendants voice for vagueness argument fails because there is no indication that the sentence enhancement provision at issue is so vague that it grants undue discretion to law enforcement officials the factors for sentence enhancement under 18 usc 924e1 are quite specific C. holding that obstruction of justice enhancement was properly applied where the defendant provided materially false information to a magistrate judge D. recognizing that enhancement for results obtained may be warranted E. holding that a sentencing court may warn a defendant of the possibility of a sentence enhancement

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that sentence enhancement for crimes committed against law enforcement officers may be applied when information charges qualifying offense information does not need to recite enhancement 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: In case any provision in this First Amendment to Fifth Amendment and Waiver shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such provision shall be severable from the remainder of this Waiver and the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Appellant Cameron Shawayne Smith challenges his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm the district court. ' The disti’ict court did not commit clear error in concluding that Smith possessed a firearm during the commission of his drug trafficking offense and applying an enhancement pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2D 1.1(b)(1), where the firearm was in his apartment where drugs were found. See United States v. Restrepo, 884 F.2d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Lopez-Sandoval, 146 F.3d 712, 716 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not abuse its Options: A. holding that unloaded firearms qualify for this enhancement B. holding enhancement not appropriate because firearms were seized from defendants home thirtyseven days after last known drug sale occurred C. holding that after roper juvenile convictions can qualify as predicate offenses for sentence enhancement purposes D. holding negligence on the part of the attorney does not qualify for such relief E. holding that an attorneys negligence alone does not qualify for such relief

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that unloaded firearms qualify for this 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Such Senior Loan complies in all material respects with, or is exempt from, all applicable Legal Requirements (including all laws, rules and regulations relating to usury). Each Mortgage Note was originated by a lender then duly authorized and licensed to originate the Mortgage Note.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No report, financial statement, certificate or other information furnished (whether in writing or orally) by or on behalf of any Loan Party to the Administrative Agent or any Lender in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the negotiation of this Agreement or delivered hereunder or under any other Loan Document, at the Closing Date (in the case of the Confidential Information Memoranda dated August 2014 and September 2014) or at the time furnished (in the case of all other reports, financial statements, certificates or other information), contains any material misstatement of fact or omitted to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, taken as a whole, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; provided that, with respect to projected financial information, the Borrowers representations are limited to those set forth in Section 5.05(e) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each member of Carlson Capital jointly represents and warrants that, as of the date of this Agreement: (a) Carlson Capital, together with all of the Carlson Capital Affiliates, collectively Beneficially Own an aggregate of 2,287,521 Common Shares; and (b) Carlson Capital has not provided or agreed to provide, and will not provide, any compensation in cash or otherwise to any New Director, solely, in his capacity as a director or director nominee of the Company in connection with such New Director’s nomination and appointment to, or service on, the Board.

assistant: Representations
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: Undertakings that will protect the child from grave risk for only a very limited time are insufficient to defeat an Article 13(b) claim. See Walsh, 221 F.3d at 218 (“The Convention does not require that the risk be ‘immediate’; only that it be grave.”) The determination of whether any valid undertakings can be crafted in such a situation is inherently fact-bound. See, e.g., Turner v. Frowein, 253 Conn. 312, 752 A.2d 955 (Conn.2000) (remanding for further consideration of alternative care arrangements and legal safeguards for repatriation of child, where evidence established that father sexually abused child and physically abused mother, home country authorities had failed to respond to mother’s complaints, and home country had no mechanism for a no contact order); Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (<HOLDING>). However, the terms of the Convention, as well Options: A. holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity B. holding district courts order with undertakings would not sufficiently protect child from violent father who abused mother and regularly ignored court orders C. holding that evidence was sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding where mother allowed child to be in contact with individual who had physically abused her mother was not capable of caring for child on her own mother admitted at trial she had not found stable employment and child was doing well in her current placement D. holding evidence insufficient to terminate mothers parental rights under section c because mother made arrangements for adequate support of children evidence showed mother left children with father who maintained steady employment and adequately supported children mother knew that father would provide adequate support and mother left children pursuant to agreed divorce decree E. holding that court could permit grandparent or other person having substantial past contact with child to intervene in pending sapcr even though original suit requesting possessory conservatorship could not be filed by grandparent or other person and further holding that stepgrandmother had standing to intervene to seek managing conservatorship of child under section 102004b and section 1020039 where natural mother abandoned child after birth parents were divorced natural father remarried father had custody of child after father died child lived first with stepmother then with stepgrandmother and mother first sought custody when child was eleven years old

assistant: The best answer is B. holding district courts order with undertakings would not sufficiently protect child from violent father who abused mother and regularly ignored court orders
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 court makes no determination that Waste Management — Washington has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, by attempting to monopolize or monopolizing solid waste collection and disposal services at Fairchild AFB, only that Waste Management — Washington may not claim immunity under the “state action” doctrine in the event the court may need to reach that issue in related proceedings or if the Government does not comply with this final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). In that regard, the court notes that the modus operandi employed by Waste Management — Washington in this case apparently has been tried by an affiliated company in another court without success. See, e.g., Waste Management of North America, Inc. v. Weinberger, 862 F.2d 1393, 1397-98 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). If Waste Management — Washington and its Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim was properly a statutory claim under the personnel management act B. holding that because colorados hazardous waste program was authorized by rcra it became effective pursuant to rcra and the citizen suit provision of section 6972a1a applies C. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction under the bid protest provisions of section 1491 to enjoin a contracting agencys termination of a contract D. holding that the puc does not have the authority to regulate or control the management decisions of a utility absent a finding that the management decision would adversely affect the public E. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate waste management of north americas claim that the el toro marine corps air base was required to award waste management of north america with a waste collection award since it was the only permittee in orange county because the case was not properly initiated as a citizen suit under rcra in addition the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit held that waste management of north america did not have standing under 31 usc 35512 since it did not file a proper bid protest nor submit a bid

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate waste management of north americas claim that the el toro marine corps air base was required to award waste management of north america with a waste collection award since it was the only permittee in orange county because the case was not properly initiated as a citizen suit under rcra in addition the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit held that waste management of north america did not have standing under 31 usc 35512 since it did not file a proper bid protest nor submit a bid
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: free to become a member of any political association and to assist personally in the association's efforts on behalf of candidates." Id. at 22, 96 S.Ct. 612. This comparison of speech and association freedoms led the Supreme Court in Buckley to find that "the primary First Amendment problem raised by ... contribution limitations is their restriction of one aspect of the contributor's freedom of political association." Id. at 24, 96 S.Ct. 612. The Supreme Court in Buckley concluded that contribution limits are not subject to strict serutiny but may violate the First Amendment if they are not closely drawn to match a sufficiently important government interest. Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230, 247, 126 S.Ct. 2479, 165 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006) (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21, 24, 96 S.Ct. 612 (<HOLDING>). We adopt the Buckley framework here. Our Options: A. holding plaintiff must be closely related to victim B. holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury C. holding that an informational interest is not sufficiently important to sustain compelled disclosure of advocates identities during the circulation period D. holding that a state must demonstrate a sufficiently important interest and employ means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms E. holding that a defendant must demonstrate a knowing waiver

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a state must demonstrate a sufficiently important interest and employ means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms
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: we reserve the right , at our discretion , to change , modify , add or remove portions of the terms , community rules , feature terms , and privacy policy at any time by posting the amended terms , community rules , feature terms , or privacy policy on our sites or within the service ( such as through in-game notices ) .

assistant: Unilateral change
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, the CVRs, and any claims or causes of action pursuant to it will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard for its principles of conflict of laws.

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: All information and materials exchanged and produced by and IDL during the course of any of the services provided by IDL to shall be proprietary and confidential to either or IDL or both, unless such information or materials (i) becomes public knowledge or is received by the other party without the fault or action of the other party or any breach of any confidentiality obligation; (ii) was independently developed by a party without use or access to the other party’s confidential information; or (iii) was previously known to a party prior to receipt of the other party’s confidential information, or (iv) are disclosed to the public by the operation or the requirement of the law. Each party shall cause all its relevant personnel and employees to handle this information and materials with the strictest care and protection. Neither party may release nor disclose such confidential information and materials unless the other party consents in writing. The contents of this agreement are confidential.

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: Buyer is not, and upon the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, Buyer will not become Insolvent. There is no Action pending or, to Buyer’s knowledge, threatened by Buyer or any third party to declare Buyer bankrupt (whether voluntarily or involuntarily). To Buyer’s knowledge after due inquiry, the transactions contemplated hereby are not subject to being recovered, overturned or unwound as a voidable preference or fraudulent conveyance on the part of Buyer.

assistant: Solvency
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: days had passed, that his symptoms were associated with the pain that he had experienced for the first time while he was working on April 27, 2011. In sum, the board’s findings about the work incident and the sensations that claimant experienced appear to be inconsistent with the board’s ultimate finding that claimant did not know, when he experienced the pull in his testicle, that he had been injured. That ultimate finding is the predicate for the board’s legal conclusion that claimant had good cause for not notifying employer of the injury within 90 days. Because the board’s order includes inconsistent factual findings and does not include a rational explanation of how those findings logically lead to its conclusion, the order lacks substantial reason. See Hamilton, 266 Or App at 682 (<HOLDING>); Christman v. SAIF, 181 Or App 191, 197-98, 45 Options: A. holding that the order was not based on substantial reason when the board failed to show how the facts that it identifies connect to its conclusion B. holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause C. holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings D. holding that the board did not abuse its discretion by dismissing an untimely appeal where the appellant failed to respond to a board order to show cause E. holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the order was not based on substantial reason when the board failed to show how the facts that it identifies connect to its conclusion
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 and demands given under the terms of Agreement shall be in writing and may be effected by personal delivery, including by any commercial courier or overnight delivery service, or by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, with all postage and fees fully prepaid. Notices shall be effective upon receipt by the party being given notice, as indicated by the return receipt if mailed; except that if a party has relocated without providing the other party with its new address for service of notices, or if a party refuses delivery of a notice upon its tender, the notice shall be effective upon the attempt to serve the notice at the last address given for service of notices upon that party. Alternatively, notices may be served by facsimile transmission, in which case service shall be deemed effective only upon receipt by the party serving the notice of telephonic or return facsimile transmission confirmation that the party to whom the notice is directed has received a complete and legible copy of the notice, and provided facsimile notices given after 5:00 p.m. Local Time on a business day shall be deemed given on the next business day. Notices shall be addressed as provided in the Basic Provisions. Any address for service of notice on either party may be changed by that party serving a notice upon the other of the new address, except that any change of address to a post office box shall not be effective unless a street address is also specified for use in effectuating personal service.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the transfer might be avoidable.” CNB Int’l, Inc., 393 B.R. at 330 (quoting Mosier v. Goodwin (In re Goodwin), 115 B.R. 674, 677 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1990)). “[A] transferee does not act in good faith when he has sufficient knowledge to place him on inquiry notice of the debtor’s possible insolvency.” ... And, “[i]f a transferee possesses knowledge of facts that suggest a transfer may be fraudulent,” he has sufficient knowledge to preclude his incantation of § 550(b)’s defense. In this case, Chorbajian was intimately familiar with BMC’s performance and knew of BMC’s financial difficulties at the time of the transfers. Accordingly, he was not without knowledge of the potential voidability of the transfers. See Grochocinski v. Knippen (In re Knippen), 355 B.R. 710, 730 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2006) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Chorbajian cannot disclaim Options: A. holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary B. holding that where the debtor did not act but merely had knowledge of and benefit from the fraudulent transfer he was not considered to have performed it C. holding that transferees failed to satisfy element of defense where they were aware of debtors financial problems at the time of transfer had lent money to debtor prior to transfer and not all money had been repaid D. holding that account summary could not be used to prove the knowledge of debtor and transferees where record contained no evidence that debtor or transferees saw the summary E. holding that because debtor retained control of property a transfer had not yet occurred

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that transferees failed to satisfy element of defense where they were aware of debtors financial problems at the time of transfer had lent money to debtor prior to transfer and not all money had been repaid
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. Juan Garza appeals the summary denial of his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the postconviction court’s order because Garza’s motion is facially insufficient. See Gilbert v. State, 805 So.2d 70, 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). Our affir-mance is without prejudice to Options: A. holding that burden is on trial court denying a facially sufficient rule 3800a motion to attach record establishing movant is not entitled to relief B. holding that jail records can properly be considered in determining jail credit issues raised pursuant to rule 3800a C. holding that the failure of a written sentence to conform to the courts oral pronouncement cannot be raised in a rule 3800a motion D. holding that the statutory entitlement to presentence jail credit starts with the initial arrest for a criminal offense E. holding that a rule 3800a motion that does not allege that the court records show the defendants entitlement to additional jail credit is facially insufficient

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a rule 3800a motion that does not allege that the court records show the defendants entitlement to additional jail credit is facially insufficient
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: facebook is not responsible for the actions , content , information , or data of third parties , and you release us , our directors , officers , employees , and agents from any claims and damages , known and unknown , arising out of or in any way connected with any claim you have against any such third parties .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive agrees that any breach of the terms of this Section 11 would result in irreparable injury and damage to the Company for which the Company would have no adequate remedy at law; the Executive therefore also agrees that in the event of said breach or any threat of breach, the Company shall be entitled to an immediate injunction and restraining order to prevent such breach and/or threatened breach and/or continued breach by the Executive and/or any and all persons and/or entities acting for and/or with the Executive, without having to prove damages. The terms of this paragraph shall not prevent the Company from pursuing any other available remedies for any breach or threatened breach hereof, including but not limited to the recovery of damages from the Executive. The Executive and the Company further agree that the confidentiality provisions and the covenants not to compete and solicit contained in this Section 11 are reasonable and that the Company would not have entered into this Agreement but for the inclusion of such covenants herein. Should a court determine, however, that any provision of the covenants is unreasonable, either in length of time, geographical area, or otherwise, the parties hereto agree that the covenant should be interpreted and enforced to the maximum extent which such court deems reasonable. In the event of any violation of the provisions of this Section 11 , the Executive acknowledges and agrees that the post-termination restrictions contained in this Section 11 shall be extended by a period of time equal to the period of such violation, it being the intention of the parties hereto that the running of the applicable post-termination restriction period shall be tolled during any period of such violation. In the event of a material violation by the Executive of this Section 11 , any severance being paid to the Executive pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise shall immediately cease.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Prior to entry upon the Property, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller evidence reasonably satisfactory to Seller that Purchaser has obtained commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $2,000,000 and written on such forms as are reasonably acceptable to Seller, naming Seller as an additional insured, with respect to the Property and any entry onto or activities on or about the Property by Purchaser and all of Purchaser’s agents, employees and contractors (and any others entering onto the Property for or at the request of Purchaser).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in two or more 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 delivered via facsimile or other form of electronic communication, which shall be deemed an original.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 44 at 2.) Presumably, Plaintiffs claim is also brought pursuant to the opposition clause of the PHRA as well. The court will not address the participation clause of the PHRA because Plaintiff failed to brief it and has framed his cause of action as defined solely by the opposition clause. See Gorum v. Sessoms, 561 F.3d 179, 185 n. 4 (3d Cir.2009) (citing Laborers’ Intern. Union ofN. Am., AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir.1994) (“An issue is waived unless a party raises it in its open ing brief, and for those purposes a passing reference to an issue ... will not suffice to bring that issue before this court.” (internal quotations omitted))). Thus, the court will analyze the evidence the in the light most favo Prac. Cas. (BNA) 59 (N.D.Ill. July 30, 2008) (<HOLDING>). While it is admirable that Plaintiff spoke Options: A. holding police department employees opposition to discrimination by police officers against black citizens did not constitute protected activity under title vii B. holding that a store security employees opposition to alleged racial profiling of customers was not protected because title vii addresses unequal treatment of employees not customers C. holding individual employees may be liable under title vii D. holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii E. holding that white female had standing under title vii to challenge her employees alleged racial discrimination against blacks

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a store security employees opposition to alleged racial profiling of customers was not protected because title vii addresses unequal treatment of employees not customers
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: for permanent residence. § 1255(i)(2). An applicant for adjustment of status under § 1255(f) must establish that he is not inadmissible under any provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or that he is eligible for a waiver of any applicable ground of inadmissibility. Sattani, 749 F.3d at 371. The INA provides that an alien is ineligible to receive an immigrant visa and is inadmissible if he was unlawfully in this country for more than one year and then “enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted.” INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)). Such aliens are not entitled to an adjustment of status. Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246, 256 (5th Cir.2005); see also In re Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355, 371 (BIA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Verdugo’s assertion that the IJ incorrectly Options: A. holding that a legal determination regarding an aliens eligibility for adjustment of status was not barred by the statute B. holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings C. recognizing that an alien is ineligible for relief under 212c if he was not actually admissible at the time he received an adjustment of status D. holding ineligible for adjustment of status alien who was inadmissible due to reentry after prior removal E. holding that aliens inadmissible under 1182a 9c i i are ineligible for adjustment of status under 1255f

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that aliens inadmissible under 1182a 9c i i are ineligible for adjustment of status under 1255f
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 violence and to a breach of the peace. Syl. Pt. 1, Mauck v. City of Martinsburg, 167 W.Va. 332, 280 S.E.2d 216, 217-19 (1981). Insulting words which tend to violence and to a breach of the peace include “vituperative epithets” and “traditional racial slurs.” Mauck, 280 S.E.2d at 219. Here, Penn invokes the second cause of action articulated by the Mauck court, namely, that Kidder’s comment constituted insulting words which tend to violence and to a breach of the peace. Kidder’s comment, however, while a crude sexual remark, was neither a vituperative epithet nor traditional racial slur of the type which the Supreme Court of Appeals have held to be actionable under section 55-7-2. See Mauck, 280 S.E.2d at 219; compare with Covey v. Fields, 177 W.Va. 481, 354 S.E.2d 413, 414 (1987) (<HOLDING>); see also Cunningham v. Martin, 170 W.Va. 411, Options: A. holding that plaintiffs conclusory allegations were insufficient to make out prima facie case for mere department status of foreign corporation defendant B. holding so where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had colluded to claim falsely that the plaintiffs physician had informed the claims adjuster that the plaintiff had been released to work and where the plaintiff was later discharged from employment and denied workers compensation benefits C. holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct D. holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position E. holding that plaintiff tendfed to make out a prima facie case under section 5572 where testimony was given to the effect that defendant had accused plaintiff of having a yellow streak up his back a foot wide and that defendant threatened to either pound or grind plaintiffs head into the sidewalk upon their next meeting accused plaintiff of participating in homosexual and oedipal dalliances and attributed to him a canine lineage and impugned plaintiffs wifes chastity and virtue in a gross manner

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiff tendfed to make out a prima facie case under section 5572 where testimony was given to the effect that defendant had accused plaintiff of having a yellow streak up his back a foot wide and that defendant threatened to either pound or grind plaintiffs head into the sidewalk upon their next meeting accused plaintiff of participating in homosexual and oedipal dalliances and attributed to him a canine lineage and impugned plaintiffs wifes chastity and virtue in a gross manner
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 court determines that any of the terms and conditions of Section 7 or this Section 8 are invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms and conditions shall not thereby be affected and shall be given full effect, without regard to the invalid portions. If any court determines that any of the terms and conditions are unenforceable because of the duration of such terms and conditions or the area covered thereby, such court shall have the power to reduce the duration or area of such terms and conditions and, in their reduced form, the terms and conditions shall then be enforceable and shall be enforced.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l)(B). Here, Mercado lied about his co-defendant’s knowledge of the drugs in the car and lied about his co-defendant’s involvement in picking up the drugs in Los An-geles. The act of picking up the drugs in Los Angeles is an act in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity. Moreover, a defendant’s lie about the involvement of a co-conspirator hinders investigators from determining all acts committed in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity. See United States v. Patron-Montano, 223 F.3d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1165-66 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Mercado’s perjury constituted the false Options: A. holding that lesser sentence imposed on codefendant did not constitute abuse of discretion where defendant was sentenced within the statutory and guideline range and where codefendant received reduction for acceptance of responsibility and for being a minimal participant B. holding that there was no miscarriage of justice where the defendant claimed that the government abused its discretion by refusing to request a threelevel downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility C. holding that adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is appropriate where the district court rebuffed a defendants attempts to plead guilty D. holding that a defendant who denied involvement of codefendant during codefendants trial had intentionally misled law enforcement officers and should not receive a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility E. holding that a defendant should not receive an acceptance of responsibility adjustment when there is contradicting obstructive conduct

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a defendant who denied involvement of codefendant during codefendants trial had intentionally misled law enforcement officers and should not receive a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility