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: causal link between these events. Pomales relies primarily on the chronological proximity between her complaint and discharge to establish the requisite connection. Temporal proximity can create an inference of causation in the proper case. See Wyatt v. Boston, 35 F.3d 13, 16 (1st Cir.1994). But to draw such an inference, there must be proof that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct when he or she decided to take the adverse employment action. See Soileau v. Guilford of Me., Inc., 105 F.3d 12, 16-17 (1st Cir.1997). There is no evidence that Vargas, the CTI employee who discharged Po-males, had any knowledge that Pomales complained to Rodney Rodriguez about Peter Rodriguez’s conduct. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Denver Pub. Schs., 164 F.3d 527, 533-34 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 151 F.3d 813, Options: A. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity B. holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation without evidence that the decisionmaker knew about plaintiffs protected activity when he made the decision that resulted in the adverse action C. holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity D. 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 E. holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation

assistant: The best answer is D. 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
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 agree to indemnify headspace and its affiliates for all claims arising from or in connection with any claims to any rights in any submission or any damages arising from any submission .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not appeal the trial court’s order striking his intervention. Therefore, Lapi-ner is not an intervenor and not a named party in this Texas derivative action. See, e.g., Johnston v. Crook, 93 S.W.3d 263, 268 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (“[A]n intervenor is a party for purposes of appeal only if (1) she timely files a pleading, and (2) the trial court does not strike the pleading before the entry of a final judgment.”). And where, as here, a nonparty has the right to appeal a decision of the trial court granting a motion to strike, such nonparty nonetheless cannot extend the appellate timetable by assailing the final judgment with a motion for new trial. Cf., e.g., Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dunker, 799 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied) (<HOLDING>); State & Cnty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelly, Options: A. holding that a letter utilized by the appellant in his argument would not be considered on appeal because it was not properly before the trial court B. holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement C. holding that claims raised by appellant for first time in motion for new trial were untimely and therefore waived D. holding that because appellant did not become a party by intervention before judgment was rendered appellant may not extend the time to appeal by filing a motion for new trial E. holding that a nonpartys motion for new trial and petition for intervention filed after the trial court signed a final judgment did not extend the courts plenary jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that because appellant did not become a party by intervention before judgment was rendered appellant may not extend the time to appeal by filing a motion for new trial
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 PARTY EXPRESSLY, INTENTIONALLY, AND IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY SUCH PARTY MAY OTHERWISE HAVE IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY TRANSACTION.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of a Participant’s Deferral Subaccounts shall be invested on a phantom basis in any combination of phantom investment options specified by the Participant (or following the Participant’s death, by his or her Beneficiary) from those offered by the Plan Administrator for this purpose from time to time. The Plan Administrator may discontinue any phantom investment option with respect to some or all Accounts, and it may provide rules for transferring a Participant’s phantom investment from the discontinued option to a specified replacement option (unless the Participant selects another replacement option in accordance with such requirements as the Plan Administrator may apply).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is preceded by a Fourth Amendment violation, the State, in addition to proving the voluntariness of the consent, must also establish a break in tire causal connection between the illegality and the evidence thereby obtained. [Citation omitted.]’ ” Grace, 28 Kan. App. 2d at 460. The Rice court determined that events between an illegal detention and a search did not purge the original taint. The factors the court relied on in holding that the subsequent consent did not purge the initial illegality were: (1) the lack of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity of the defendant, (2) the lack of intervening events between the illegal seizure and the consent, and (3) the intensifying pressure applied by the officers to the visitors. 264 Kan. at 243-44. See Grace, 28 Kan. App. 2d at 460-61 (<HOLDING>). Here, even if Wilson consented to the search, Options: A. holding that defendants voluntary consent to search his apartment dissipated taint of prior illegal search B. holding that the defendants unlawful arrest in his hotel room rendered his subsequent consent to the search of his room invalid even though he signed a consent form allowing the search after his arrest because the government completely failed to address whether there was a break in the causal relationship between the unlawful arrest and the subsequent search C. holding that consent to search did not purge the taint of an unlawful detention when no intervening circumstances sufficiently separated the consent from the unlawful detention D. holding waiver to search invalid when individual was implicitly threatened with illegal detention if he did not consent E. holding that evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful stop should have been suppressed because there were no intervening events that purged the illegal taint

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that consent to search did not purge the taint of an unlawful detention when no intervening circumstances sufficiently separated the consent from the unlawful detention
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: we conclude that the denial of a new trial was an abuse of discretion, we REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial. CARPENETI, Justice, not participating. 1 . Conam Alaska v. Bell Lavalin, Inc., 842 P.2d 148, 154 (Alaska 1992). 2 . See Langdonv. Champion, 745 P.2d 1371, 1372 n. 2 (Alaska 1987). 3 . Based on two mentions by Perdue’s counsel of Pugliese's claim for $540 in past lost wages, Pugliese also argues that the parties stipulated to Pugliese’s entitlement to compensation for that amount. But the record does not disclose any stipulation as to the $540 lost wage claim. Per-due’s counsel simply mentioned that Pugliese claimed only $540 in past lost wages. The statements accurately described Pugliese's claim. 4 . 718 P.2d 929 (Alaska 1986). 5 . Id. at 931. 6 .Id. at 933. 7 . See id. at 932 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations omitted). 8 . Id. at 933. Options: A. holding that prosecutors phrasing argument in terms of i think or i think the evidence shows to which trial counsel did not object is not prosecutorial misconduct if the arguments are based on evidence or reasonable inferences B. holding statements i just dont think that i should say anything and i need somebody that i can talk to to be ambiguous rather than assertion of right to remain silent C. holding a suspects request for some time to think alone was not an invocation of the right to silence D. holding do you think i need a lawyer to be ambiguous E. holding that defense counsels estimate that compensable damages were 6900070000 and concession that i think hes been significantly injured i think he has injury now i think it may need treatment we dont know for sure were not judicial admissions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that defense counsels estimate that compensable damages were 6900070000 and concession that i think hes been significantly injured i think he has injury now i think it may need treatment we dont know for sure were not judicial admissions
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: violation. The certificate of finality issued on his second PRP on April 9,1997. On April 18, 1997, Waldron-Ramsey next filed a motion in federal district court to reopen a prior federal habeas corpus action that previously had been dismissed for failure to exhaust. In this motion, Waldron-Ramsey asserted that all of his state claims were now exhausted, and he requested that the district court reopen the prior habeas action so that he could meet his deadline under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) for filing his habeas petition. Because Waldron-Ramsey’s state conviction was finalized before AEDPA’s enactment on April 24, 1996, his deadline to file a habeas petition under AEDPA was April 23, 1997. See Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). His April 18, 1997 motion had shown Options: A. holding that prisoners whose convictions became final on or before april 24 1996 must file their 2255 motions before april 24 1997 B. holding that the aedpa applies to those habeas corpus petitions filed after its effective date of april 24 1996 C. holding that in general aedpa applies only to habeas petitions filed after the statutes effective date of april 24 1996 and noting that aedpas special procedures for 28 usc 2254 petitions in capital cases apply also to petitions pending on april 24 1996 D. holding that a prisoner with a state conviction finalized before april 24 1996 had until april 23 1997 to file a federal habeas petition E. holding that prisoners had one year from the effective date of aedpa april 24 1996 to file their habeas petitions before they could be considered timebarred by the operation of 2244d1

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a prisoner with a state conviction finalized before april 24 1996 had until april 23 1997 to file a federal habeas petition
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of this Waiver by the Loan Parties, and the performance of the Loan Agreement, (i) have been duly authorized by all necessary action, (ii) do not and will not contravene (A) any of its Organizational Documents, (B) any material law or regulation, or any judgment, order or decree of any Governmental Body or (C) any Material Contract binding on or otherwise affecting it or any of its properties, (iii) do not and will not result in or require the creation of any Lien (other than pursuant to any Other Document) upon or with respect to any of its properties, and (iv) do not and will not result in any default, noncompliance, suspension, revocation, impairment, forfeiture or nonrenewal of any permit, license, authorization or approval applicable to its operations or any of its properties, except, in the case of clause (iv), to the extent where such contravention, default, noncompliance, suspension, revocation, impairment, forfeiture or nonrenewal could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Authorizations
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 analyze ozone emissions resulting from the proposed action, rather than from a concern with the adequacy of an actual ozone analysis.”). This contention is belied by the record. In its final EIS, BLM identified the 8-hour background concentration for ozone in the region adjacent to the WAII tracts for the period from 2005 through 2007. See J.A. 1033. According to the data relied upon by BLM, the background concentration for that time period was 136 |xg/m3, below the NAAQS of 157 p,g/m3 that applied prior to May 2008 and below the 147 p,g/m3 standard that applied after May 2008. See J.A. 50, 1033. BLM therefore noted that the area is considered to be in “attainment” status for ozone, see J.A. 1388, something that is conceded by WildEarth Plaintiffs, see WildEarth Pis.’ [89] Mem. at 9 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, BLM analyzed the effects of NOx Options: A. recognizing that nox is an ozone precursor B. recognizing that campbell county is in attainment with the current ozone naaqs C. holding that motion to transfer also must show either that county where action is pending is improper or that venue is mandatory in another county D. recognizing county officers as those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions E. holding that the grant county prosecutor had a statutory duty to be legal advisor to the county clerk even though she was not embroiled in litigation in which the county was the real party in interest

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that campbell county is in attainment with the current ozone naaqs
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: Guarantor irrevocably and unconditionally (a) agrees that any suit, action or other legal proceeding arising out of or relating to this Guaranty may be brought, at the option of the Landlord, in a court of competent jurisdiction in Surprise, Arizona or any United States District Court having jurisdiction in Surprise, Arizona; (b) consents to the jurisdiction of each such court in any such suit, action or proceeding; and (c) waives any and all personal rights under the laws of any state to object to the laying of venue of any such suit, action or proceeding in Surprise, Arizona. Nothing contained herein, however, shall prevent the Landlord from bringing an action or exercising any rights against any security or against Guarantor personally, and against any property of Guarantor, within any other state or jurisdiction. Initiating such proceeding or taking such action in any other state shall in no event constitute a waiver of the agreement contained herein that the law of the State of Arizona shall govern the rights and obligations of Guarantor and the Landlord hereunder or of the submission herein made by Guarantor to personal jurisdiction within the State of Arizona. The aforesaid means of obtaining personal jurisdiction are not intended to be exclusive but are cumulative and in addition to all other means of obtaining personal jurisdiction and perfecting service of process now or hereafter provided by the law of the State of Arizona.

assistant: Submission To Jurisdiction
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: Count 4 of the complaint, plaintiffs claim that the ABCMR failed to comply with regulations permitting transfer “To Rehabilitate Where A Problem Exists,” count 8 of the complaint, violation of due process by ineffective counsel, count 10 of the complaint, plaintiffs claim of a conflict of interest within the Board of Inquiry, and count 11 of the complaint, plaintiffs allegation that Board of Inquiry failed to provide plaintiff with an ethnic minority representative. Defendant is correct that plaintiff did not assert the allegations in counts 4, 8, 10, and 11 before the ABCMR. When a plaintiff fails to raise arguments before the ABCMR, he or she is precluded from raising those arguments for the first time before this court. See Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 999 Options: A. holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts B. holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act C. holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record D. holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record E. holding that judicial review of final agency action under the administrative procedure act provides the proper procedure to challenge the sufficiency of an eis

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act
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: Deceptive Trade Practices' Act (“DTPA”) is to “protect consumers against false, misleading, and deceptive business practices, unconscionable actions, and breaches of warranty and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.” Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 17.44(a). To maintain a private cause of action under the DTPA, the plaintiff must be a consumer. Flenniken v. Longview Bank & Trust Co., 661 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex.1983); Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.1981); Riverside Nat’l Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.1980). The DTPA applies to a loan transaction if the borrower’s objective is to use the loan to purchase goods or services. La Sara Grain v. First Nat’l. Bank of Mercedes, 673 S.W.2d 558, 566 (Tex.1984); Flenniken, 661 S.W.2d at 707 (<HOLDING>). “Goods” are defined as “tangible chattels or Options: A. holding that it was not improper for a lender to halt the proposed settlement and discounted payment of plaintiffs loan when the lender believed the loan would otherwise be paid in full B. holding that doench prevents borrowers from arguing that a condition in a loan agreement has been waived by the banks nonverbal conduct at the loan closing C. holding the lender hable when after borrower defaulted the lender took control of borrowers finances determined which creditors were paid and loaned the borrower money for the purpose of paying employees on condition that none of the money be used to pay withholding taxes D. holding that a lender violated the tila by splitting the charges surrounding one loan into two loans executed on the same day where the consumer only sought one loan E. holding that the lender was subject to the dtpa because the borrowers purpose in obtaining the loan was the purchase of a house

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the lender was subject to the dtpa because the borrowers purpose in obtaining the loan was the purchase of a house
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: within three hundred days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occürred... , It is undisputed that the 300-day limitations period applied here, and that the filing date of Kassaye’s charge for EEOC purposes was January 18, 1991. It is also undisputed that Kassaye received actual notice of the tenure denial, at the latest, by January 20, 1990 Thus, Kassaye’s EEOC charge was timely only if “the alleged unlawful employment practice” occurred within 300 days before January 18, 1991. Kassaye concedes that if, as the district court held, the gravamen of his complaint was the tenure denial, his charge was filed too late because it was not filed until 363 days after January 20, 1990. See Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258, 101 S.Ct. 498, 504, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Kassaye’s administratively-filed Options: A. holding that in computing time to determine whether an act was performed within a specified period of time under the statute of limitations the first day is excluded and the last day of the period is included B. holding that the statute of limitations for an employment discrimination lawsuit by a college professor who did not receive tenure began when the college made the tenure decision and communicated that decision to the plaintiff C. holding that the date on which the plaintiff learned of the defendants denial of tenure not the date on which the plaintiff became unemployed was when the statute of limitations began to run D. holding that when prisoner diligently seeks information about the status of his case the limitations period may be equitably tolled until he receives notice of its denial E. holding that the limitations period for a discrimination charge based on tenure denial begins when aggrieved person receives notice of denial not on the last day of employment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the limitations period for a discrimination charge based on tenure denial begins when aggrieved person receives notice of denial not on the last day of employment
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: Investor has tendered to the Company two (2) completed and manually signed copies of this Subscription Agreement and one (1) completed and manually signed copy a Rule 506 Disqualification Event Questionnaire. Simultaneously with tendering this Subscription Agreement, the Investor is delivering to the Company the Total Subscription Amount in accordance with the wire transfer instructions provided separately by the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the Property. In order to determine whether the owner of a property is a nominee, a court may consider any of the following factors: (1) whether the taxpayer expended personal funds for the property; (2) whether inadequate or no consideration was paid by the alleged nominee; (3) whether the property was placed in the alleged nominee’s name in anticipation of a lawsuit or other liability; (4) whether the taxpayer enjoys the benefits of, retains possession of, and exercises dominion and control over the property; (5) whether a close family relationship exists between the taxpayer and the alleged nominee; (6) whether conveyances between the taxpayer and alleged nominee were recorded; and (7) whether the alleged nominee interferes with the taxpayer’s use of the property. Id. at 694-95 (<HOLDING>). Based on the factors listed above, there are Options: A. recognizing that mcl 57011076 provides a real property owner with a defense to a claim of lien if the owner can show that the sum of payments made pursuant to the specific contract plus the claim of lien exceed the price of the contract B. holding that owner of townhouse was nominee of relative and therefore lien on property by irs was proper C. holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor the irs held a secured interest a tax lien in the property D. holding that where property subject to the irss timely filed lien is sold during a nonjudicial sale and the irs is not given notice of the sale the sale of the property is made subject to and without disturbing the lien E. holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that owner of townhouse was nominee of relative and therefore lien on property by irs was proper
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term or provision set forth in this Control Agreement shall be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Control Agreement, other than those provisions held invalid or unenforceable, shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable term or provision were omitted.

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: for well over an hour. Nelson testified at trial that initially she alone questioned defendant, then De-gasser interviewed defendant while Nelson observed through an adjoining room, and finally both officers questioned defendant together. Nelson stated that the time period during which she questioned the defendant alone was approximately fifty minutes. Indeed, defendant claims that the interview lasted several hours. Under either view, we believe the session continued for a lengthy enough period of time to suggest custody. Cf. Mincy 838 P.2d at 653 (refusing to find custody where the questioning lasted only five minutes and was investigatory rather than accusatory in nature). In light of the undisputed evidence of the instant case bearing on the five factor anal , 514 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Farinacci-Garcia, 551 Options: A. holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live B. holding that the defendants conclusory assertion that he told his counsel he wanted to testify but that counsel failed to call him as witness was insufficient to require a hearing or a response from government but the defendant should have been allowed an opportunity to state his claim with greater specificity C. holding that defendants prior arrests were insufficient to establish that defendant was aware of his right to appointed counsel even though he told dea officers that he understood his rights D. holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense E. holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that defendants prior arrests were insufficient to establish that defendant was aware of his right to appointed counsel even though he told dea officers that he understood his rights
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 Obligor shall carry on its business in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, by-laws and orders including, without limitation, all such laws, regulations, by-laws and orders relating to environmental protection, the maintenance and disposal of hazardous materials and substances, land use and occupational health and safety. The Obligor shall give notice to the Trustee of any notice received by it of any violation of any such laws, regulations, by-laws or orders, of any impending or threatened investigations or proceedings by governmental authorities in connection therewith or of any proceedings commenced or threatened by any other person in connection with environmental, health or safety matters.

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: Seller’s or Guarantor’s audited annual financial statements or the notes thereto or other opinions or conclusions stated therein shall be qualified or limited by reference to the status of Seller or Guarantor as a “going concern” or a reference of similar import.

assistant: Financial Statements
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 federal, foreign, state or local jurisdiction requires the Company to withhold taxes or other amounts with respect to any Member’s allocable share of taxable income or any items thereof, or with respect to distributions, the Company shall withhold from distributions or other amounts then due to such Member an amount necessary to satisfy the withholding responsibility and shall pay any amounts withheld to the appropriate taxing authorities. In such a case, for purposes of this Agreement the Member for whom the Company has paid the withholding tax shall be deemed to have received the withheld distribution or other amount due and to have paid the withholding tax directly and such Member’s share of cash distributions or other amounts due shall be reduced by a corresponding amount.

assistant: Withholdings
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: v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 791, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). Here, the district court did not state the grounds for refusing Wa-terfield’s request for substitute counsel. 7 . The State also cites a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals case for the proposition that routine post-conviction presentence interviews are not critical stages of proceedings. However, that case was withdrawn and reissued without the holding cited by the State. Compare United States v. Rogers, 899 F.2d 917, 919 n. 7 (10th Cir.1990), with United States v. Rogers, 921 F.2d 975, 978 n. 7 (10th Cir.1990). 8 . Waterfield makes no attempt to explain how the differences of opinion between himself and counsel created a conflict that could not be reconciled. Cf. State v. Scales, 946 P.2d 377, 382-83 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). 9 . We stress, however, that "when a Options: A. holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense B. recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel C. holding that in determining whether there exists a valid waiver of the right to counsel in the criminal setting the court may consider a defendants lack of good faith in working with appointed counsel including an unreasonable refusal to cooperate with counsel or an unreasonable request for substitution of appointed counsel and the timeliness of defendants request for new counsel particularly when a defendant makes an untimely request for new counsel under circumstances which are likely to result in a continuance D. holding that even intense animosity between a defendant and appointed counsel did not constitute good cause for substitution of counsel because to result in the denial of a defendants right to counsel such animosity may not be based solely on the defendants illegitimate complaints or subjective perception of events E. recognizing a defendants right to dismiss retained counsel in favor of appointed counsel

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that even intense animosity between a defendant and appointed counsel did not constitute good cause for substitution of counsel because to result in the denial of a defendants right to counsel such animosity may not be based solely on the defendants illegitimate complaints or subjective perception of events
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 2017-A Lease was fully and properly executed by the parties thereto and such 2017-A Lease represents the legal, valid and binding full-recourse payment obligation of the related Lessee, enforceable against such Lessee in accordance with its terms, except as enforceability is subject to or limited by bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance, moratorium and other similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights in general or principles of equity (whether considered in a suit at law or in equity).

assistant: Enforceability
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: custody of R.A. her life would not be worth living. Given her approximately 15 attempts at suicide, this continued reference to a “life not worth living” suggests she still sees suicide as a remedy for her problems. It is not in R.A.’s best interest to place him in an environment where his sole caretaker, who has attempted suicide at least 15 times, sees suicide as a solution to problems. In light of all the evidence, the trial court could have reasonably formed a firm belief or conviction that termination of Jordan’s parental rights was in R.A.’s best interest. Accordingly, we hold the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of Jordan’s parental rights was in the best interest of R.A. See in re J.T., 2009 WL 2077184 at 14 (<HOLDING>). We overrule Jordan’s first issue. Options: A. holding evidence that mother allowed child to remain in home in which there was violent conduct as evidenced by fathers physical abuse of mother during her pregnancy was factually sufficient to support termination B. holding mothers due process rights were not violated when her appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw and hearing was held without mother because the record showed mother did not inform counsel of her whereabouts after moving thereby frustrating counsels efforts to contact her and because mother was properly served with notice of the termination hearing C. holding evidence that mother allowed child to remain in home in which there was violent conduct as evidenced by fathers physical abuse of mother during her pregnancy was legally sufficient to support termination D. holding that fundamental error occurred in the prosecution of a mother for aggravated manslaughter of her child when the prosecutor commented on the fact that the mother had contemplated having an abortion during the course of her pregnancy with the child E. 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

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Aff. ¶¶ 23, 24. See also PL’s Depo. at 178 (Ex. F to Document No. 39).) To be sure, Plaintiff cites no law stating that sleeping, writing, using a truck driver’s license, or sex are “major life activities,” but Defendants raise no argument to the contrary. Accordingly, the court will assume that at least some of these activities are “major life activities” under the ADA and chapter 151B. See Arrieta-Colon v. Wal-Mart P.R., Inc., 434 F.3d 75, 88 (1st Cir.2006) (“Under Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, [638-39], 118 S.Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed.2d 540 (1998), ‘reproduction is a major life activity for the purposes of the ADA’ and ‘reproduction and the sexual dynamics surrounding it are central to the life process itself.’ ”); Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 21 (1st Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Farrington v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 2003 WL Options: A. recognizing that to establish a disability a plaintiff must prove a substantial limit with specific evidence that his particular impairment substantially limits his particular major life activity B. recognizing sleeping as major life activity C. holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity D. holding that breathing is a major life activity within the contemplation of the ada E. holding that reproduction is not a major life activity

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing sleeping as major life activity
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: actions against him. Despite the evidence of statements related to Bennett’s military service — such as Avera’s statement to Bennett that “you’ve been gone a long time to both Iraq and Afghanistan and I’m not going to take any chances,” P. App. 13 — Bennett has failed to introduce evidence that would enable a reasonable jury to find that his military service was a motivating factor in DISD’s decisions regarding his reassignments, his termination, and the demand that he relinquish his police commission on being transferred to dispatcher. Although Bennett was injured and developed PTSD during his military service, Bennett points to no evidence that DISD’s decisions regarding his employment related to his protected status as a member of the military. See Sheehan, 240 F.3d at 1014-15 (<HOLDING>). IX Bennett asserts a claim for USERRA Options: A. holding that an indictment for capital murder must contain at least one aggravating factor B. holding that speech must be at least a substantial or motivating factor in the discharge quotations omitted C. holding there must at least be a distinct possibility that a viable fca action could be filed D. holding that in userra discrimination actions there must be an initial showing by the employee that military status was at least a motivating or substantial factor E. holding that even when there is a legitimate government purpose the discrimination must bear at least some rational relationship to that purpose

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in userra discrimination actions there must be an initial showing by the employee that military status was at least a motivating or substantial factor
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in question was equipped with two emergency stop buttons, located at the top and bottom of the escalator, respectively. When either button is pushed, if the escalator is functioning as intended, the escalator will stop. The buttons are safety devices designed to stop the escalator quickly should a hand, foot, or article of clothing become caught; thus, ready accessibility to the buttons is only sensible. We cannot say that the escalator would not stop in the absence of Appellees’ negligence because the escalator would also stop whenever any person pushed one of the emergency stop buttons. The record is silent as to whether anyone did, in fact, push one of the stop buttons, but this is of little concern. The facts need not show that a stop button definitely was pushe 81-82 (1967)(<HOLDING>). In the present case, we must necessarily Options: A. holding authority to control limits duty to control B. holding defendants control not exclusive where customers had access to soda bottles for approximately two months before one bottle inexplicably shattered C. holding defendants control not exclusive where thousands of customers had access to revolving stools every week D. holding defendants control not exclusive where customers had access to selfservice washing machines E. holding that the remedies are exclusive

assistant: The best answer is D. holding defendants control not exclusive where customers had access to selfservice washing machines
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: Create, assume, incur or suffer to exist, or allow any Restricted Subsidiary to create, assume, incur or suffer to exist, any Lien on or in respect of any Property of the Parent or any Restricted Subsidiary, or assign or otherwise convey, or allow any Restricted Subsidiary to assign or otherwise convey, any right to receive income, other than (a) Permitted Liens and (b) assignments or conveyances of a right to receive income between the Parent and any of its Restricted Subsidiaries or between Restricted Subsidiaries.

assistant: Liens
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: theory at trial, and although the district court erred in admitting Sienkiewiez’s statement, the error was harmless. Wantuch makes the same arguments under Rule 701 regarding the admission of Robinson’s testimony. Because Wantuch failed to contemporaneously object (or state specific grounds for his objections) to any of Robinson’s testimony of which he now complains, we review Robinson’s testimony for plain error. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1); United States v. Swan, 486 F.3d 260, 263 (7th Cir.2007). Under plain error review, an error must be “clear or obvious” and “affect substantial rights” in order to warrant reversing the district court’s decision to admit the evidence. United States v. Schalk, 515 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir.2008) (citation omitted). We will not correct a Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Unlike Sienkiewicz’s testimony, Robinson did Options: A. holding that a participant in a conversation may testify as to his understanding of the conversation to satisfy rule 701as requirement that the testimony be rationally based on the witnesss perceptions B. holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal C. holding that a witness may testify about his subjective interpretation of a conversation in which he is participating as long as his opinion is rationally based on his perception and is helpful either to an understanding of his testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue D. holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace was admissible because it was rationally based upon the perception of the witness E. holding that the presence in the courtroom of an expert witness who does not testify to the facts of the case but rather gives his opinion based upon the testimony of others hardly seems suspect and will in most cases be beneficial for he will be more likely to base his expert opinion on a more accurate understanding of the testimony as it evolves before the jury

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a witness may testify about his subjective interpretation of a conversation in which he is participating as long as his opinion is rationally based on his perception and is helpful either to an understanding of his testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue