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: was clear, the tall split-bench front seat ob-secured any clear view of the backseat. Id. at 870-71. Because the officers believed that an armed individual could potentially be concealed in the backseat, the officers conducted a protective sweep of the car. Id. at 871. Jones moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the warrantless search and the subsequent search pursuant to a warrant in part on grounds that the protective sweep of the car was unlawful. Id. Given that the officers were lawfully in the presence of the car and that a prudent officer could reasonably anticipate a dangerous individual in the car, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the protective sweep was reasonably necessary for officer safety. Id. see also United States v. Thomas, 249 F.3d 725, 730 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Options: A. holding that officers had probable cause to search the defendants van for drugs where among other facts the defendant had voluntarily retrieved half a gram of methamphetamine from the vehicle and had acted surreptitiously in doing so B. holding that the protective sweep of a van was lawful where officers stopped the van on reasonable suspicion that the driver had just committed an armed bank robbery and officers could not see inside the van to determine whether other occupants posed a danger to them C. holding that in the absence of specific and articulable facts showing that another individual who posed a danger to the officers or others was inside the warehouse the officers lack of information could not justify the warrantless sweep and dismissing the governments argument that someone must have been guarding the cocaine inside the warehouse as the kind of unparticularized suspicion or hunch that buie held was insufficient to justify a warrantless sweep internal quotation marks and citation omitted D. holding that where an officer threw an arrestee against a van kneed him in the back pushed his head into the side of a van and searched his groin area in an uncomfortable manner such force was de minimis force E. holding circumstances supporting reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop of occupants of a van included that the van was located near the vicinity where officers had reports earlier that evening of breakins involving a van

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the protective sweep of a van was lawful where officers stopped the van on reasonable suspicion that the driver had just committed an armed bank robbery and officers could not see inside the van to determine whether other occupants posed a danger to them
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 Florida. Any action arising out of or relating to any of the provisions of this Agreement may be brought and prosecuted only in the courts of, or located in, Jacksonville, Florida, and the parties hereto consent to the jurisdiction and venue of said courts.

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: Except for failures that would not reasonably be expected, either individually or in the aggregate, to result in a Material Adverse Effect, the Loan Parties and each of their Restricted Subsidiaries have filed all Tax returns and reports required to be filed, and have paid all Taxes levied or imposed upon them or their properties, income or assets or otherwise due and payable (including in the capacity of withholding agent), except those which are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings being diligently conducted, for which adequate reserves have been provided in accordance with GAAP, and which contest effectively suspends the collection of the contested obligation and the enforcement of any Lien securing such obligation, and as to which Taxes no Liens (other than Permitted Encumbrances on account thereof) have been filed. There is no current, pending or proposed Tax audit, deficiency, assessment or other claim or proceeding with respect to any Loan Party or any of their Subsidiaries that, individually, or in the aggregate, would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Taxes
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: captioned case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Defendants’ brief is silent on the issue of jurisdiction. At oral argument, the parties agreed Count II is a state claim over which the district court had supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because Counts I and II “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” We agree. A plaintiff may not bring a state claim under the aegis of § 1983, so if Count II states a plausible claim, our jurisdiction is predicated on § 1367(a), not § 1331. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (providing a cause of action for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Flynn v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283, 290 (7th Options: A. holding that in order to prevail under 1983 a plaintiff must show 1 that defendants deprived him or her of a right secured by the constitution or laws of the united states and 2 that in doing so defendants acted under color of state law internal quotation marks omitted B. holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states C. holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under 1983 D. recognizing objective standard applicable under 42 usc 1983 and suits under united states constitution E. holding that to prevail on a 1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law in other words that there was state action

assistant: The best answer is C. holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under 1983
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement represents the entire agreement and understanding between the Company and Employee concerning the subject matter of this Agreement and Employee’s employment with and separation from the Company and the events leading thereto and associated therewith, and supersedes and replaces any and all prior agreements and understandings concerning the subject matter of this Agreement and Employee’s relationship with the Company, with the exception of the Confidentiality Agreement and the Stock Agreements, except as otherwise modified or superseded herein.

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: activity. State v. Taylor, 599 P.2d 496, 503 (Utah 1979). “[T]he transactions leading up to the offense, the interaction between the agent and the defendant, and the response to the inducements of the agent” must all be evaluated. Id. Moreover, “[e]xtreme pleas of desperate illness or appeals based primarily on sympathy, pity, or close personal friendship, or offers of inordinate sums of money, are examples, depending on an evaluation of circumstances in each case, of what might constitute prohibited police conduc ts of money, or large quantities of marijuana for an extremely low price. Rather, Wakefield used the market rate to determine the price of the marijuana. Furthermore, Wakefield did not make repeated requests or badger J.D.W. to buy the marijuana. Cf. Sprague, 680 P.2d at 406 (<HOLDING>). J.D.W. immediately responded positively to Options: A. holding that where defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation agent did not violate the fifth amendment by contacting defendant for questioning after defendant refused to answer questions without a lawyer present B. holding testimony of undercover drug agent regarding tips that defendant was selling drugs and description of defendant were inadmissible hearsay given the statements specifically referred to defendant C. holding that uncharged amounts of drugs may be included as relevant conduct even if the defendant never actually possessed or distributed the drugs D. holding that agent entrapped defendant by goading defendant and repeatedly requesting drugs from him E. holding that evidence that the defendant and a witness sold drugs together was relevant to prove how the witness knew the defendant

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that agent entrapped defendant by goading defendant and repeatedly requesting drugs from him
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: 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987); In re: Wymer, 5 B.R. at 806. Because these factors were imported from the standard for deciding preliminary injunctions or staying them pending appeal, district courts in this circuit have not agreed on how to apply the discretionary stay factors when deciding whether to stay a final bankruptcy court order pending appeal. Compare Rose Townsend Trust v. Johnston (In re: Johntson), No. 06-80040, 2007 WL 2684736, 2007 Bankr.LEXIS 3092 (Bankr.E.D.Wash. Sept. 7, 2007) (requiring movant to show under first factor that he is “likely to succeed” on the merits, rather than merely presenting a “substantial case”) and Silicon Valley Bank v. Pon (In re: Pon), No. C-93-2745, 1994 U.S Dist. LEXIS 2559 at *6 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 25, 1994) (<HOLDING>) with Lynch v. Ca. Pub. Util. Comm’n, No. Options: A. holding that the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence remains with the movant B. holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence C. holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence D. holding that the four factors are conjunctive and movant will not win a stay unless each factor is established by a preponderance of the evidence E. holding that criminal conduct of which defendant is acquitted may be used as sentencing factor if proved by preponderance of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the four factors are conjunctive and movant will not win a stay unless each factor is established by a preponderance of the evidence
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 Nonemployee Director shall have the option to elect to receive shares of one or more series of Common Stock, as prescribed by the Board, in lieu of all or part of the Director Compensation otherwise payable by the Company during each calendar quarter. Subject to any applicable Purchase Restriction as described in Section 9.3, to the extent a Nonemployee Director has elected in writing to receive stock in lieu of Director Compensation, such Nonemployee Director will receive shares of Common Stock on the last day of the calendar quarter for which the Director Compensation was earned. The Director Compensation shall be converted to a number of shares of Common Stock equal in value to such Director Compensation based on the Fair Market Value of such shares on the last day of the calendar quarter for which the Director Compensation would otherwise be payable to the Nonemployee Director, with any fractional shares paid in cash. For this purpose, if the last day of the calendar quarter is not a trading day, then Fair Market Value shall be determined as of the next succeeding trading day. Any shares issued in lieu of Director Compensation shall be issued free of all restrictions except as required by law.

assistant: General
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 Employment Term, the Executive shall serve as the Chief Operating Officer of the Company, reporting directly to the President of the Company. In such position, the Executive shall have such duties, authority and responsibility as are consistent with the Executive’s position.

assistant: Positions
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: blizzard entertainment shall give users notice on the world of warcraft `` home page '' located at http://eu.battle.net/wow/ prior to blizzard entertainment installing software upgrades , performing testing , or performing maintenance on the servers , data transmission lines , and other systems related to world of warcraft , and/or in the manner set forth in article xii , below , whenever possible .

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: No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement or any breach of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to, or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision or breach hereof (whether or not similar), nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless otherwise expressly set forth in writing and signed by the party or parties against whom enforcement is sought.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that they relied upon the federal trust responsibility as “complementary authority” for the decision to implement the FARs. Doc. 169, Ex. A at 1. Federal Defendants specifically reserved their position on whether the trust responsibility might provide an independent basis for such an action “in some other case.” Id. In light of the above conclusion that the 1955 Act does not provide authority for the FARs, Federal Defendants’ refusal to invoke the trust responsibility as an independent basis for the action renders the action without legal support. The Yurok point to cases in which courts have accepted post hoc rationalizations for agency action. Doc. 134 at 6 (citing Mass. Tr. of E. Gas and Fuel Assocs. v. United States, 377 U.S. 235, 247-48, 84 S.Ct. 1236, 12 L.Ed.2d 268 (1964) (<HOLDING>); NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 766 Options: A. holding that even though an administrative bodys stated basis of authority was in error it maintained the requisite authority such that the error would have no bearing on the substance of the decision and remand was not appropri ate B. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error C. holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction D. holding that district court error was not clear error because no prior ninth circuit authority prohibited the course taken by the district court E. holding that the harmless error test places a burden on the state to prove that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that even though an administrative bodys stated basis of authority was in error it maintained the requisite authority such that the error would have no bearing on the substance of the decision and remand was not appropri ate
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: State did not make a submissible case as to his being a SVP subject to commitment under the SVP Act in that there was no evidence from which the jury could find as required, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had serious difficulty in controlling his sexually violent behavior. As to that alleged error, the appellant requests that we reverse outright or, in the alternative, reverse and remand for a new trial. The State concedes that it did not prove that the appellant had serious difficulty in controlling his sexually violent behavior. However, it contends that the appellant is not entitled to an outright reversal as a result, in that, at the time of trial, the controlling law did not require it to prove that fact. See Shaffer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 689 S.W.2d 688, 687 (Mo.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). In that regard, the State contends that it Options: A. holding that trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to raise the issue of the defendants mental health at trial B. recognizing that even where a party has the burden of proof at trial that party need not produce proof supporting his claim in response to a motion for summary judgment unless the movant has first presented evidence that would negate an element of the nonmovants claim or indicates that the nonmovant will be unable to meet his burden at trial it is never enough simply to state that the nonmoving party cannot meet its burden at trial C. holding the standard of proof in summary judgment rulings is the same as it would be at trial D. holding that a plaintiff cannot be denied a new trial for failing to establish sufficient proof to meet a standard which at the time of trial did not exist E. holding verified motion for new trial did not require a hearing because it lacks sufficient detail to put the trial court on notice that reasonable grounds for relief exist

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a plaintiff cannot be denied a new trial for failing to establish sufficient proof to meet a standard which at the time of trial did not exist
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 Employment Period, the Executive’s base salary will be $550,000.00 per annum (the “ Base Salary ”). The Base Salary will be payable semi-monthly in (24) twenty-four equal instalments on the 15th and 30th of the month. If applicable, deductions may be made from this gross amount as is paid in accordance with our regular payroll procedures and subject to deductions from taxes and other withholdings as required by law. Annually during the Employment Period the Company shall review with the Executive his job performance and compensation, and if deemed appropriate by the Board of Directors of the Company or its delegate, in its discretion, the Executive’s Base Salary may be increased.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: seized is not supported by substantial evidence. I would find that the initial encounter of the officers with the youths was consensual in nature. As such, I would hold that the officer’s protective frisk of Jason L. was objectively reasonable having just discovered two weapons on his companion and consequently that Jason L.’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated. Therefore, I would reverse the district court’s order suppressing the weapons. 1 . This factor requires courts to consider the characteristics of the defendant "in seeking to determine whether even a facially innocuous encounter might, in the circumstances, have overborne the citizen’s freedom to walk away.” United States v. Black, 675 F.2d 129, 134 (7th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Seventy-Three Thousand, Options: A. holding that a dog that was destroyed by the police department was obviously seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment B. holding that duress or coercion would invalidate a contract if the coercion comes from the opposing party not the claimants attorney C. holding that the notice requirement found in rule 41d is not required by the fourth amendment D. holding police officers show of authority by announcing he was a police officer and ordering defendant to stop was an investigative seizure implicating fourth amendment protections E. holding that defendant as an articulate intelligent young man was not so naive or vulnerable to coercion that special protection from police contacts was required by the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that defendant as an articulate intelligent young man was not so naive or vulnerable to coercion that special protection from police contacts was required by the fourth amendment
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: a 2000 biological opinion (“BiOp”) related to the Federal Columbia River Power System. Earlier, the National Wildlife Federation (“NWF”) had sued the same defendants challenging the same 2000 BiOp. In this appeal, Plaintiff disputes three rulings of the district court. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 1. The district court stayed Plaintiffs action until Defendants issued a revised BiOp in accordance with the court’s remand in the NWF case. In 2004 Defendants issued a replacement document, the 2004 BiOp. Upon its issuance the stay order expired by its own terms. Therefore, Plaintiffs appeal of the stay order is moot; now that the stay has ended, no further relief is possible on that issue. See Gator. Com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 2. The district court also denied Plaintiffs Options: A. holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention B. holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention C. holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy D. holding that article iii requires a live controversy at every stage of litigation E. holding that where a judgment in another matter lying at the heart of the federal litigation at issue became final and no longer appealable the article iii case or controversy in the federal courts ceased to exist

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that article iii requires a live controversy at every stage of litigation
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: have motivated their actions in other areas of the system.” Keyes, 413 U.S. at 208, 93 S.Ct. 2686. Plaintiffs quote Dayton II for the proposition that such a system is “under a continuing duty to eradicate the effects of that system, and [ ]. the system-wide nature of the violation furnished pri-ma facie proof that current segregation in the [ ] schools was caused at least in part by prior intentionally segregative official acts.” Dayton II, 443 U.S. at 536, 99 S.Ct. 2971 (internal citation omitted). Keyes and Dayton II were ongoing school desegregation cases that involved purposeful discrimination by school systems attempting to avoid their affirmative obligation to undo systemic discrimination under Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 495, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) (Brown I) (<HOLDING>) and Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 301, Options: A. holding that the classofone equal protection theory has no place in the public employment context B. holding that the concept of separate but equal has no place in public education C. holding section 625 only requires a showing that the conduct was done in a place that is open to the public or where the public has a right to be D. holding that segregation in public education is a denial of equal protection of the laws E. holding that wisconsin violated equal protection rights of handicapped children by denying them an education at public expense

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the concept of separate but equal has no place in public education
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the brand may only follow users who first follow the brand ; and the brand may not take any action that implies an endorsement or relationship between the brand and the followed user , unless the brand has independently obtained the rights to imply such an endorsement .

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 shares of Stock subject to this Restricted Stock Award vest and become non-forfeitable (a) in three installments of equal amount (subject to whole-share rounding), with one such installment vesting on each of the first three anniversaries of the Date of Grant; provided that you are still employed by the Company on each applicable vesting date, (b) upon your death, “Disability” (as such term is defined in the Change in Control Severance Agreement) prior to your termination of employment, or (c) pursuant to the terms of the Change in Control Severance Agreement. Other than pursuant to the terms of the Change in Control Severance Agreement, if your employment terminates prior to the date the Stock vests all unvested Stock shall be forfeited at the time of such termination. In addition, if you fail to satisfy the applicable requirements of the Change in Control Severance Agreement (including the delivery of an irrevocable release), shares which would otherwise vest pursuant to the Change in Control Severance Agreement shall be forfeited.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Seller is (i) a limited partnership duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the Laws of Delaware and (ii) is duly qualified or licensed to do business and is in good standing in each jurisdiction in which such qualification or licensing is necessary under applicable Laws or where the Exploitation of Seller’s Product requires such qualification, except where the failure to be so qualified would not have a Material Adverse Effect. Seller has no Subsidiaries.

assistant: Organizations
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: agencies, [and] political subdivisions.” Pub. L. No. 92-261, § 2(1), 86 Stat. 103-113 (1972) (alteration supplied). The amended definit ton) (Clinton Ros-siter ed., 1963) (2003 reprint). 25 . "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 5 (1868). 26 . Additional Principal Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant, at 12-13. 27 . Several district courts also have held that Congress has not abrogated tribal sovereign immunity under the ADEA. See, e.g., Bales v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, 606 F.Supp.2d 1299, 1308 (D. N.M. 2009) ("Congress did not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity when it enacted the ADEA.”); Colmar v. Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians, No. CIV S-09-0742 DAD, 2011 WL 2456628 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2011) (<HOLDING>). 28 . Additional Principal Brief for Options: A. holding in the context of an adea claim that an indian tribes sovereign immunity had not been abrogated by congress and subject matter jurisdiction did not exist B. holding that an indian tribes exercise of criminal jurisdiction over nonindians is inconsistent with the domesticdependent status of the tribes and that tribes may not assume such jurisdiction without congressional authorization C. holding that congress which regulated the introduction of alcoholic beverages in indian country could validly delegate to indian tribes its authority to regulate that subject matter because indian tribes themselves possessed independent authority over the subject matter D. holding the americans with disabilities act not to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity and declaring congress abrogates tribal immunity only where the definitive language of the statute itself states an intent either to abolish indian tribes common law immunity or to subject tribes to suit under the act E. holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred a claim for money damages against the librarian of congress in his official capacity because immunity had not been waived and the exceptions to immunity did not apply

assistant: The best answer is A. holding in the context of an adea claim that an indian tribes sovereign immunity had not been abrogated by congress and subject matter jurisdiction did not exist
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you may not use any of the dow jones indexessm , index data , or the dow jones marks in connection with the issuance , creation , sponsorship , trading , marketing , or promotion of any financial instruments or investment products ( for example , derivatives , structured products , investment funds , exchange-traded funds , investment portfolios , etc. , where the price , return and/or performance of the instrument or investment product is based on , related to , or intended to track any of the indexes or a proxy for any of the indexes ) without a separate written agreement with dow jones .

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: During the Term and thereafter, Holder shall not disparage Acquiror, the Company or any of their respective Affiliates in any manner that could affect the goodwill, reputation or business relationships of any such Person with the public generally, or with any of their customers, suppliers, employees or other business partners.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: he is sentenced. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1), (2). Mr. Hernandez has nine criminal history points, see PSI ¶ 35, and pled guilty to violations of two firearm possession offenses, and therefore the relief afforded by section 3553(f) is not available to him. B. Criminal History Mr. Hernandez argues that the court should depart from the applicable sentencing range because his criminal history category overstates the seriousness of his past criminal conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (policy statement) (authorizing departure when a defendant’s criminal history category “significantly over-represents the seriousness of a defendant’s criminal history category or the likelihood that the defendant will commit further crimes”); see also United States v. Shoupe, 988 F.2d 440, 446-47 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, Mr. Hernandez contends that the Options: A. holding that a court may depart downward from the applicable guideline range under section 4a13 B. holding that district court must provide reasonable notice of intent to upwardly depart from guideline range C. holding that where the guideline range is higher than the statutory maximum sentence the court should depart from the lowest range that could support the statutory maximum D. holding that conduct contained in dismissed counts may be considered by a district court in determining whether to depart from the applicable guideline range E. holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a court may depart downward from the applicable guideline range under section 4a13
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: immunity as a matter of law because it was objectively reasonable for them to believe, at the time, that their denial of kosher meals to an inmate who self-identified as a Hebrew Israelite did not violate the inmate’s rights. In April 2004, when Barnes arrived at Southport, the Orientation Manual provided that kosher meals were “available to Jewish inmates.” (per curiam), it was not unreasonable for Southport officials to deny Barnes kosher meals because he was registered as Hebrew Israelite in accordance with the prison policy limiting kosher meals to Jewish inmates. Nor was it unreasonable for the prison officials to rely on Barnes’s registered religious designation in making its initial kosher meal determination. See Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Once the Central Office determined that the Options: A. holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered religious exercise B. holding that docs may place reasonable limitations on an inmates right to the free exercise of religion including a requirement that the inmate register his religious affiliation C. recognizing a religious institutions right to free exercise of religion D. holding that relatively shortterm and sporadic intrusions on an inmates prayer activities did not constitute a substantial burden on inmates free exercise of his religion E. holding that corrections officers mockpreaching and espousal of religious views did not constitute a substantial burden on inmates free exercise of religion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that docs may place reasonable limitations on an inmates right to the free exercise of religion including a requirement that the inmate register his religious affiliation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: a statement by you , made under penalty of perjury , that the above information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or are authorized to act on the copyright owner 's behalf .

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 Company shall continue to employ Executive, and Executive accepts such continued employment, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. The “Initial Term” of this Agreement is the period commencing on the Effective Date and expiring at the earlier to occur of (a) 11:59 p.m. on the first anniversary of the Effective Date (the “ Expiration Date ”) or (b) the Termination Date (as defined in Section 4 ); provided, however, that, if the Termination Date has not occurred, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically renewed for the twelve (12) month period immediately following the Expiration Date and each twelve (12) month period ending thereafter (each, a “ Renewal Term ” and, together with the Initial Term, the “ Term ”), unless either the Company or Executive provides written notice to the other Party of his or its election not to renew this Agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to the last day of the then-current Term. Executive’s employment hereunder shall be coterminous with the Term, and termination of Executive’s employment and the Term shall be simultaneous.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the plan would likely only perversely benefit ISN. Therefore, given these circumstances, the court acted within its discretion when it allowed the replacement fiduciary to formally terminate the plan. C. The issue of whether ISN’s request for a stay is moot is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Green v. City Of Raleigh, 523 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir.2008). Similarly, whether the district court order requiring ISN to pay Saakvitne was one for injunctive or monetary relief is also subject to de novo review. Because ISN has already paid Saakvitne and ISN did not appeal the district court’s denial of its request for a stay under Fed. R.App. P. 8(a)(2), ISN’s appeal of the earlier December 2009 order is now moot. See, e.g., Koger v. United States, 755 F.2d 1094, 1096-98 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the posting of a supersedeas Options: A. holding the rule against taxpayer standing applies both to federal taxpayers and state taxpayers challenging state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as state taxpayers B. holding that an appeal by taxpayers in a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the government from collecting income tax deficiencies was mooted because the taxpayers had paid the deficiencies pending the appeal C. holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge D. holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity E. holding that wages are subject to oregons personal income tax and that a taxpayers argument to the contrary was frivolous

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an appeal by taxpayers in a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the government from collecting income tax deficiencies was mooted because the taxpayers had paid the deficiencies pending the appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Parties acknowledge and confirm that any oral or written Information exchanged by the parties in connection with this Agreement is confidential. The Parties shall maintain the confidentiality of all such information. Without the written approval by the other Parties. any Party shall not disclose to any third party any confidential information except as follows.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: for purposes of this subsection , `` titles '' shall include without limitation ` rank ' titles ( e.g. , `` corporalted , '' or `` generalvlad '' ) , monarchistic or fantasy titles ( e.g. , `` kingmike '' , `` lordsanchez '' ) , and religious titles ( e.g. , `` thepope , '' or `` reverend al '' ) .

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: Except as set forth in this Agreement or as required by law, neither Party shall make any press release or other public announcement or other disclosure to a Third Party concerning the existence of or terms of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Each Party agrees to provide to the other Party a copy of any public announcement as soon as reasonably practicable under the circumstances prior to its scheduled release. Each party shall have the right to expeditiously (but in any event within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt) review any press release or announcement regarding this Agreement or the subject matter of this Agreement; provided, however, that such right of review shall only apply for the first time that specific information is to be disclosed, and shall not apply to the subsequent disclosure of substantially similar information that has previously been disclosed unless there have been material changes in the disclosure since the date of the previous disclosure.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Lenders and the Issuing Bank may continue to make loans or extend credit to the Borrowers based on this Loan Guaranty until five (5) days after they receive written notice of termination from any Loan Party. Notwithstanding receipt of any such notice, each Loan Party will continue to be liable to the Administrative Agent, the Lenders and the Issuing Bank for any applicable Guaranteed Obligations created, assumed or committed to prior to the fifth day after receipt of the notice, and all subsequent renewals, extensions, modifications and amendments with respect to, or substitutions for, all or any part of such Guaranteed Obligations. Nothing in this Section 10.08 shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of, or eliminate, limit, reduce or otherwise impair any rights or remedies the Administrative Agent or any Lender may have in respect of, any Default or Event of Default that shall exist under clause (o) of Article VII hereof as a result of any such notice of termination.

assistant: Terminations
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: You will become vested in the Awarded Shares at the end of the Vesting Period set forth in Appendix A, provided you remain in the service of the Company or one of its subsidiaries either as an associate, if this Award was granted to you as an associate, or as a member of the Board of Directors, if the Award is granted to you as a director, throughout the Performance Period and the Vesting Period, except as otherwise specifically provided in this Section. This Award shall automatically terminate in the event of your termination of employment or other service with the Company, for any reason other than (a) due to your death, Disability or normal retirement as provided in Section 6 below or (b) following a Change in Control as provided in Section 9(b) below, at any time prior to the end of the Performance Period or the Vesting Period. In the event of such termination, all Target Shares and/or Awarded Shares shall be forfeited and all obligations of the Company to you under this Award shall become void and of no further effect.

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: activities, Pyles is not entitled to habeas relief based upon the state’s failure to produce this evidence because it is not material. LaCour testified at trial that he was on unadjudicated probation for burglary, was currently incarcerated for two pending burglary charges to which he intended to plead guilty, and had a conviction for bank larceny. He also testified that he is a heroin addict and that he worked as an informant while on federal probation. Additionally, as noted earlier, LaCour acknowledged on cross-examination that his testimony was motivated in part — if not entirely' — by the prospect that he would receive help from prosecutors in obtaining a lenient sentence on his burglary charges. Banschenbach testified that he had prior convictio 179, 1181 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The district court therefore properly denied Options: A. holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade B. holding that the prosecutions failure to disclose information regarding a witnesss past cooperation with law enforcement did not constitute a brady violation in light of other impeachment evidence in the record including testimony regarding the witnesss extensive drug use and past cooperation with the dea C. holding that trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of witnesss pending indictment when witnesss testimony regarding defendants participation in murder was virtually identical to witnesss written statement which was sworn to on day of murder and prior to offense for which witness was indicted D. holding that evidence failed to show that the state violated brady and giglio by failing to timely disclose impeachment evidence regarding an alleged plea deal when the defendant failed to show that there was a deal between the state and witness in which witness received consideration for his testimony at the defendants trial E. holding that the governments failure to disclose a deal whereby it dismissed a drug indictment against a witness who was crucial to the governments case was immaterial in light of testimony regarding the witnesss prior felony convictions extensive involvement in the drug trade and past informant activity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the governments failure to disclose a deal whereby it dismissed a drug indictment against a witness who was crucial to the governments case was immaterial in light of testimony regarding the witnesss prior felony convictions extensive involvement in the drug trade and past informant activity