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: rests with the Commission to show that the funds in the possession of [the relief defendant] are ill-gotten.” FTC v. Bronson Partners, LLC, 674 F.Supp.2d 373, 392 (D.Conn.2009) (citations omitted). “The ill-gotten gains must be linked to the unlawful practices of the liable defendants.” Bronson Partners, LLC, 674 F.Supp.2d at 392. Where “it would be difficult, if not impossible, to trace specific ... [fraudulently obtained funds], a freeze order need not be limited ... to funds that can be directly traced to defendant’s illegal activity [because] ... the defendant should not benefit from the fact that he commingled his illegal profits with other assets.” Byers, 2009 WL 33434, at *3 (citations omitted); see also SEC v. Aragon Capital Mgmt., LLC, 672 F.Supp.2d 421, 443 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>). If disgorgement of “fraudulently obtained Options: A. holding that a defendant compensated himself by spending investors funds for his own expenses B. holding that tracing proceeds of illegal funds is unnecessary and where tainted funds have been commingled with potentially legitimate funds the sec is entitled to obtain disgorgement from the entire pool of funds C. holding that sec interpretation of federal securities law is entitled to deference if it is reasonable D. holding that even if the sec succeeded in showing defendants violated the exchange act or sec rules the sec is not entitled to a permanent injunction or an officerdirector bar E. holding that remand is unnecessary when it is clear that the same decision would have been reached in the absence of the errors

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that tracing proceeds of illegal funds is unnecessary and where tainted funds have been commingled with potentially legitimate funds the sec is entitled to obtain disgorgement from the entire pool of funds
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 premises to serve the common interests of the hotel and defendant. The results of tracking in enough snow and water to create a five-foot puddle were obvious and easily foreseeable; the severity of the harm created by this condition readily apparent; the opportunity to notify of the condition and insure prevention of the obvious danger readily available and the fairness of imposing such duty indisputable. Defendant claims that the custom in the industry precludes the imposition of a duty to notify. Even if it is the custom of a delivery person- not to alert the premises owner of a hazard that he has created, the custom is wrong. See United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169, 173, reh’g denied, 160 F.2d 482 (2d Cir.1947); see also The T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737, 740 (2d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 287 U.S. 662, 53 S.Ct. 220, 77 Options: A. holding that it was proper for court to rely on affidavits of defendants representatives in negotiations because their personal knowledge and competence to testify are reasonably inferred from their positions and the nature of their participation in the matters to which they swore B. recognizing drug traffickers will commonly possess firearms to protect their product to protect their drugs to protect their cash to protect their life and even to protect their turf alteration in original internal quotation marks omit ted C. holding that while trial courts are encouraged to state all findings in their written orders they are not required to do so as long as the basis for their decisions is clear from the record and thus susceptible to review D. recognizing strong preference that children live in their own homes with their own families E. holding that tugs not equipped with radios were unseaworthy despite the custom among carriers to rely upon their crews to supply their own radios noting courts must in the end say what is required there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that tugs not equipped with radios were unseaworthy despite the custom among carriers to rely upon their crews to supply their own radios noting courts must in the end say what is required there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission
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: from imprisonment — from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint — lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.... The civil confinement here at issue is not limited, but potentially permanent. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690-91, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (citations omitted). The Court continued that “[a] statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem.” Id. at 690, 121 S.Ct. 2491. Following this rationale, no less of a problem arises if indefinite detention were caused by the inability to pay a bond. Indeed, the language of Zadvydas compels the conclusion that the bond must be low enough that the immigrant is able to meet it. See also Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 243, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970) (<HOLDING>). “[T]he alien’s release [post-removal-order] Options: A. holding that forfeiture of 357144 in currency was excessive where the maximum statutory fine was 250000 and the maximum fine under the sentencing guidelines was 5000 B. holding that state may not revoke probation for nonpayment of fine where probationer is unable to pay through no fault of his own C. holding that state may not imprison indigent defendant solely for inability to pay fine D. holding that state may not subject indigent defendants to period of imprisonment beyond statutory maximum E. holding in a case where the maximum time of imprisonment was extended because an indigent defendant was unable to pay a fine and court costs that a state may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is financially unable to pay a fine

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in a case where the maximum time of imprisonment was extended because an indigent defendant was unable to pay a fine and court costs that a state may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is financially unable to pay a fine
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: defendant who is convicted of a charge not included in the indictment. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 219, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960) (“Here, ... we cannot know whether the grand jury would have included in its indictment [the additional] charge.... This was fatal error.”). But there are significant differences between criminal and civil proceedings, even here, where the deprivation of property is great. We do not hold that an error in a civil context can never be structural, but we do hold that the errors here — failure to mitigate the use of classified information and failure to provide sufficiently detailed notice — do not undermine the proceedings so fundamentally that we cannot ask whether the error was harmless. See KindHearts II, 710 F.Supp.2d at 654 (<HOLDING>). Turning to the harmless-error analysis, we Options: A. holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment B. holding to that effect with respect to rule 64 C. holding the same with respect to an apartment D. holding that at least with respect to the constitutionally inadequate notice in that case the errors were not structural E. holding that under privacy act federal government waived its sovereign immunity with respect to actual damages but not with respect to damages for mental or emotional distress

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that at least with respect to the constitutionally inadequate notice in that case the errors were not structural
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: assumed all of the rights and remedies previously conveyed to Lehman Bank. On this basis, Lehman Holdings argues that it was injured by Universal American’s alleged breach, allowing Lehman Holdings to sue on its own as purchaser (and not merely as assignee) of the agreements. This argument is invalid. The breaches of the contractual representations and warranties occurred when they were owed to Lehman Bank, not Lehman Holdings. It was not until 2011, years after the losses were allegedly sustained, that any of the contractual rights were assigned to Lehman Holdings. Thus, when the causes of action accrued, the alleged victim would have been Lehman Bank, not Lehman Holdings. See ACE Secs. Corp. v. DB Structured Prods., Inc., 25 N.Y.3d 581, 596-97, 15 N.Y.S.3d 716, 36 N.E.3d 623 (2015) (<HOLDING>); Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Options: A. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract B. holding that a breach of a representation or warranty occurs at the time of contract execution regardless of any subsequent failure to observe contractual terms requiring repurchase or cure of that breach C. holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract D. recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach E. holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a breach of a representation or warranty occurs at the time of contract execution regardless of any subsequent failure to observe contractual terms requiring repurchase or cure of that breach
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive and Company agree that they will not disclose , or permit those acting on their behalf to di s close , any aspect of the proceedings under Paragraph 17(a) and Paragraph 17(b), including but not limited to the resolution or the existence or amount of any award , to any person , firm, organization, or entity of any character or nature , unless divulged (i) to an agency of the federal or state government, (ii) pursuant to a court order, (iii) pursuant to a requirement of law, (iv) pur s uant to prior written consent of the Company or the Executive, or (v) pur s uant to a legal proceeding to enforce a settlement agreement or arbitration award. This provi s ion is not intended to prohibit nor doe s it prohibit the Executive's or Company's disclosures of the terms of any settlement or arbitration award to their attorney(s), accountant(s) , financial advisor(s), or family member s, provided that such persons comply with the provi s ions of thi s paragraph.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: grants relief by using the rules of procedural default to hold that Appellant preserved his claim. Thus, the majority explicitly declines to address the merits of the State’s voidability issue, but it proceeds to grant the relief it would have granted if it had held the orders in this case were void. Maj. Op. at 843, 847. I am unable to join the majority in concluding that the dispositive issue here is that Appellant preserved his claim by making a timely and specific objection at trial when we decline to address the voidability issue. If the question of whether the orders in this case are void or voidable has not been answered, I think that ambiguity is derived from Davis, where we apparently began returning our relevant case law to its oldest roots. See Garrett, 6 Tex. at 448 (<HOLDING>). Unlike the majority, I would reach the merits Options: A. holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order B. holding that when the district court improperly purported to transfer to the circuit court an action over which the circuit court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment which was void and dismissing the appeal from that void judgment C. holding that court lacked jurisdiction because no warrant or summons was issued during term of supervision D. recognizing that under the rule of necessity where all judges would be disqualified in a suit brought against every district and circuit court judge in the circuit none are disqualified E. holding that an order or judgment issued by a disqualified judge is void but not because the court lacked jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an order or judgment issued by a disqualified judge is void but not because the court lacked 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: 413 U.S. 601, 610, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)). 46 . Edgewood III, 826 S.W.2d at 495. 47 . Edgewood II, 804 S.W.2d at 497; see also Edgewood IV, 917 S.W.2d at 726. 48 . Of course, consolidation may not always be attainable or efficient. Perhaps local residents of McLennan County, for example, prefer to pay extra so their students can be distributed among 20 different school districts, or perhaps this is the most efficient system. But surely sometimes consolidation wo . Raines, 521 U.S. at 819-20, 117 S.Ct. 2312 ("We have always insisted on strict compliance with this jurisdictional standing requirement. And our standing inquiry has been especially rigorous when reaching the merits of the dispute would force us to decide whether an action taken by one of the o -58 (Tex.2004) (<HOLDING>). 81 . See TEX. ELEC. CODE § 41.001. 82 . A Options: A. holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable B. holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion C. holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable D. holding experts failure to explain how various factors affected his calculations rendered opinion unreliable E. holding an experts testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes

assistant: The best answer is D. holding experts failure to explain how various factors affected his calculations rendered opinion unreliable
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 489 U.S. 836 109 S.Ct. 1518 103 L.Ed.2d 922 Walter ZANT, Warden, Petitionerv.William Neal MOORE. No. 87-1104. March 29, 1989. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Case below, 824 F.2d 847. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). 2 Justice BRENNAN, concurring. 3 While I concur in the disposition of this case, I share Justice BLACKMUN's concern as to whether petitioner should be permitted to raise the retroactivity issue at this point in the proceedings. In my view this is a matter for the Court of Appeals to address in the first instance, when it reconsiders the case in light of our recent decision in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). 4 Justice BLACKMUN, dissenting. 5 I would dismiss the petition for certiorari as having been improvidently granted, rather than vacate and remand the case for reconsideration in the light of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). The Court's discussion of retroactivity in Teague, to be sure, could have some bearing on the issues in this case. But petitioner did not raise nonretroactivity as a defense to respondent's claim for federal habeas relief, and that defense therefore should be deemed waived. 6 In Teague, the Court did not consider the claim of nonretroactivity to have been waived. Instead, it addressed retroactivity as a threshold matter. But that approach was dictated by the posture of the case. The petitioner in Teague sought the announcement of a new rule of constitutional law to be applied for the first time in his case. It was this Court's judgment that no new rule of law should be announced in the first instance in a habeas case if similarly situated habeas petitioners could not benefit from that rule because of established principles of nonretroactivity. The present litigation is in a different posture in that respondent here did not seek the announcement of a new rule of constitutional law in his case in the first instance. I see no reason to give petitioner a second opportunity to interject the issue of nonretroactivity as a defense. 7 In any event, I must assume that it is not the thrust of this Court's order to prejudge the availability of a retroactivity defense. That issue is for the Court of Appeals on remand.

assistant: 1
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: as between you and oculus , to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law , the services are provided on an `` as is '' and `` as available '' , basis , and oculus expressly disclaims all representations , warranties and conditions ( express or implied , oral or written ) , including any implied warranties of merchantability , fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement .

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: claim of exemption finding that the failure to disclose a $10,000 tax refund “resulted from a cavalier and reckless intention regarding their disclosure obligations”); Henkel v. Green (In re Green), 268 B.R. 628, 648 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2001) (stating that a debtor’s failure to promptly amend schedules to correct errors and omissions made under oath “can be considered reckless indifference to the truth and is tantamount to fraud”). Debtors who, acting with reckless disregard for the accuracy of the information contained in their schedules, fail to disclose substantial value in their home have been denied the right to amend their exemptions for bad faith. See In re Bauer, 291 B.R. 127, 130-31 (Bankr.D.Minn.2003), aff’d, Bauer v. Iannacone (In re Bauer), 298 B.R. 353, 357 (8th Cir. BAP 2003) (<HOLDING>). Bad faith findings can be based on grounds Options: A. holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons B. holding that debtors refusal to submit to a deposition based upon assertion of privilege against selfincrimination justified bankruptcy judges decision to strike the debtors affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment C. holding that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding bad faith and denying a debtors amended claim of exemption based upon evidence that the debtors undervalued their home in the schedules to reflect no equity D. holding that a debtors 522d1 exemption was invalid when the debtor exempted proceeds from the prepetition sale of the debtors marital home which were paid to a judgment creditor with an attachment on the debtors interest in the home E. holding that new yorks notice to judgment debtors satisfied due process by specifying that a procedure existed to adjudicate exemption claims and advising debtors to contact an attorney even though the notice did not inform judgment debtors of the specific steps to be taken to test exemption claims

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding bad faith and denying a debtors amended claim of exemption based upon evidence that the debtors undervalued their home in the schedules to reflect no equity
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 displace duties that the Legislature statutorily requires to be performed by the clerk of the court by reassigning the duties to its bailiff. Compare Building Systems, Inc. v. Medical Center, Ltd., 228 Neb. 168, 421 N.W.2d 773 (1988). In holding that notice of judgment sent by the court’s bailiff does not comply with the requirements of § 25-1301.01, we are not exalting form over substance. This case aptly illustrates the problems that can arise when notice is not sent by the clerk. If the clerk had made a court entry indicating that the notice had been mailed, a presumption of regularity would have attached to his or her actions, and the Nyes’ claim that they did not receive notice would be without merit under Roemer. See, e.g., State v. Hess, 261 Neb. 368, 622 N.W.2d 891 (2001) (<HOLDING>). But when both the court and clerk admit that Options: A. holding that evidence that va sent appellant an election card when combined with presumption of regularity accorded to the official acts of public officers including mailings was enough to discharge any 7722 duty assuming there was one B. holding that a clerks scheduling duties as part of a courts inherent power to control its docket is subject to absolute immunity C. holding that private party can assert official immunity if it contracted with a public official to perform governmental duties D. holding that presumption of regularity is afforded to clerks of court performing their official duties E. recognizing a presumption of regularity that undergirds the official acts of public officers causing courts to presume that they have properly discharged their official duties

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that presumption of regularity is afforded to clerks of court performing their official duties
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 rights and interests of the Grantee under this Agreement may not be sold, assigned, encumbered or otherwise transferred except, in the event of the death of the Grantee, by will or by the laws of descent and distribution. In the event of any attempt by the Grantee to alienate, assign, pledge, hypothecate, or otherwise dispose of the Performance Shares or any right hereunder, or in the event of the levy or any attachment, execution or similar process upon the rights or interests hereby conferred, the Company may terminate the Performance Shares by notice to the Grantee, and the Performance Shares and all rights hereunder shall thereupon become null and void. The rights and protections of the Company hereunder shall extend to any successors or assigns of the Company and to the Company’s parents, Subsidiaries, and affiliates. This Agreement may be assigned by the Company without the Grantee’s consent.

assistant: Assignments
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: disputes does not favor brokerage firms because arbitrators are bound to apply the law. Brown, 664 F.Supp. at 974 (quoting United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960)); see also Shearson/American Express, Inc., 482 U.S. at 233-34, 107 S.Ct. at 2341 (concluding SEC has broad authority to regulate rules adopted by national security ex nn.Stat. § 549.211, subds. 2-3 (Supp.1997) (providing for sanctions against parties who bring action for improper purpose, assert unwarranted or frivolous arguments, or allege factual contentions that lack evidentiary support). Because we find no evidence Ottman brought this appeal in bad faith, we decline to award sanctions. See Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130, 141 (Minn.1990) (<HOLDING>). DECISION Ottman’s post-resignation defamation Options: A. recognizing that federal courts have inherent authority to control and redress bad faith and unreasonable vexatious or wanton conduct in litigation that leads to delay prolonging or disruption of court proceedings via imposition of sanctions including award of attorney fees B. holding error to award statutory sanctions where no evidence of bad faith and attorney did not assert frivolous claim or unfounded position for purposes of delay or harassment C. holding trial courts finding that claim was frivolous insufficient to meet statutory requirement that claim constitutes harassment is groundless and not made in good faith D. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort E. holding that a bad faith claim arises out of contract for attorney fee statute

assistant: The best answer is B. holding error to award statutory sanctions where no evidence of bad faith and attorney did not assert frivolous claim or unfounded position for purposes of delay or harassment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: [] on that basis.” (Respondents’ Exh. L at 7) Because Petitioner had not raised the specific claims he asserted on appeal to the trial court, the Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed those new claims for fundamental error, and concluded they were “not supported [] with citations to any evidence in the record,” and were “clearly unreasonable.” (Id. at ¶ 15) The appellate court found “no merit” to Petitioner’s contention that Judge Conn should have recused himself. (Id.) The Court of Appeals’ fundamental error review is sufficient to exhaust Petitioner’s challenge to Judge Conn’s failure to recuse himself because the court specifically identified which claims it was reviewing. Poland v. Stewart, 117 F.3d 1094, 1105-06 (9th Cir.1997); Moormann v. Schriro, 426 F.3d 1044, 1057 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) Regardless, Petitioner’s recusal claim fails Options: A. holding that the failure to charge an essential element of a crime in the indictment is an error which should be noted by an appellate court sua sponte as plain error B. holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court C. holding that when neither the petitioners state court briefs nor the state courts decision made any reference to any federal constitutional claim or cited any federal constitutional cases the lack of fundamental error found by the state court was a lack of fundamental error under arizonas state constitution D. holding that an appellate court cannot sua sponte address an issue that it perceives in the record where that issue is not presented at the appeal level E. holding that a claim is considered exhausted by arizonas fundamental error review if it was explicitly noted in the briefs presented to the state appellate court or the state court mentions it is considering the claim sua sponte

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a claim is considered exhausted by arizonas fundamental error review if it was explicitly noted in the briefs presented to the state appellate court or the state court mentions it is considering the claim sua sponte
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: Assembly shall, and shall cause its Affiliates to, assist and cooperate with Allergan, as Allergan may reasonably request from time to time, in connection with its activities set forth in this Section 9.7.6, including where necessary, joining in, or being named as a necessary party to, such action, providing access to relevant documents and other evidence and making its employees available at reasonable business hours; provided , that Allergan shall reimburse Assembly for its reasonable and verifiable out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith.

assistant: Cooperation
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 criminal history points. Then, USSG § 4A1.2, Comment (n.3), provides: Prior sentences are not considered related if they were for offenses that were separated by an intervening arrest (i.e., the defendant is arrested for the first offense prior to committing the second offense). Otherwise, prior sentences are considered related if they resulted from offenses that (A) occurred on the same occasion, (B) were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (C) were consolidated for trial or sentencing. The phrases “same occasion” and “common scheme or plan” are not defined in the Guidelines. Crimes are unrelated when they “occurred at different times, in different locations, and were committed against different victims.” United States v. Oldham, 13 Fed.Appx. 221, 226-27 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The phrase “common scheme or plan” is one “of Options: A. holding that rule 3702d12 does not apply to convictions for possession of firearm and carrying concealed weapon when unrelated to commission of any additional substantive offenses B. holding that prior felony drug convictions that fall within the conspiracy period may be used to enhance the defendants sentence if the conspiracy continued after his earlier convictions were final C. holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing under the acca even though convictions were neither charged in indictment nor admitted D. holding that all convictions under wisconsin sexual assault statute were not per se convictions for crimes of violence E. holding a defendants convictions for burglarizing homes within hours of each other were unrelated

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a defendants convictions for burglarizing homes within hours of each other were unrelated
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and fair opportunity to establish that he is not the previously convicted individual or that the conviction is an inappropriate basis for enhancement under section 841.” United States v. Campbell, 980 F.2d 245, 252 (4th Cir.1992). The record indicates that the district court did not specifically question Mitchell or advise him as required under § 851(b). However, we conclude that the error did not affec ed in Mitchell’s case listed the 1993 conviction and indicated that it would increase the minimum mandatory custodial sentence, supervised release period, and minimum fine amount. Neither Mitchell nor his attorney raised any question about the conviction or objected to the contents of the presentence report prior to sentencing. See United States v. Hill, 142 F.3d 305, 313 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In addition, during the sentencing hearing, Options: A. holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report B. holding that failure to comply with 851b was harmless in part because defendant did not object to prior convictions listed in presentence report C. holding defendants failure to object to the drug quantity assessment in the presentence report at sentencing was a waiver of the issue on appeal D. holding that failure to comply with 851b was harmless because defendant was properly put on notice that the government was seeking an enhancement and defendant concluded that no valid grounds existed for challenging the convictions or enhancement after research E. holding failure to comply with 851b was harmless error in part because defendant did not comply with 851c procedures for challenging prior convictions

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that failure to comply with 851b was harmless in part because defendant did not object to prior convictions listed in presentence report
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: 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(l), the facts of this case are such that the USDA’s collection efforts began as a violation of the automatic stay, but ultimately became a violation of the discharge injunction upon the termination of the automatic stay once the Debtor received her discharge. The USDA notes as much, seemingly to refute the idea that any fees are warranted under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) because the automatic stay was no longer in effect by the time Debtor’s counsel contacted the USDA. We find, however, that this is a distinction without a difference as attorney’s fees would otherwise have been available as compensatory damages under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) for the USDA’s violation of the discharge injunction and would be analyzed under the same standard. See, e.g., In re Pratt, 462 F.3d at 17 (<HOLDING>); Bessette v. Avco Fin. Servs., Inc., 230 F.3d Options: A. holding debtors are entitled to establish and recover their compensatory damages under 11 usc 105a for violations of the discharge injunction B. holding that debtors are not barred from bringing an avoidance action under 11 usc 522f after their discharge has been granted C. holding a bankruptcy court is empowered to reopen a bankruptcy case on its own motion under 11 usc 105a D. holding bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue injunction of state court litigation against debtors principal stating this power under 11 usc 105a includes the authority to enjoin litigants from pursuing actions in other courts that threaten the integrity of the debtors estate E. holding that a plaintiff who proves a cause of action under 1981 may recover punitive damages where the plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory damages even if nominal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding debtors are entitled to establish and recover their compensatory damages under 11 usc 105a for violations of the discharge injunction
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 recognize and agree that if for any reason any of the provisions of this Agreement are not performed in accordance with their specific terms or are otherwise breached, immediate and irreparable harm or injury would be caused for which money damages would not be an adequate remedy. Accordingly, each party agrees that in addition to other remedies the other parties shall be entitled to seek an injunction without posting a bond or other undertaking restraining any violation or threatened violation of the provisions of this Agreement. In the event that any action shall be brought in equity to enforce the provisions of the Agreement, no party shall allege, and each party hereby waives the defense, that there is an adequate remedy at law.

assistant: Specific Performance
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 Loan Party shall not, nor shall it permit any of its Subsidiaries to, directly or indirectly, enter into any transaction of any kind with any Affiliate of any Loan Party, whether or not in the ordinary course of business, other than (a) on fair and reasonable terms as favorable to such Loan Party or such Subsidiary as would be obtainable by such Loan Party or such Subsidiary at the time in a comparable arm’s length transaction with a Person other than an Affiliate, (b) advances to directors or employees pursuant to Section 7.02(c) , (c) payroll and similar advances in the ordinary course of business and consistent with past practices, (d) the payment of reasonable and customary fees to directors of Holdco or any Subsidiary, (e) customary and reasonable compensation and employee benefit arrangements paid to, and customary indemnities provided for the benefit of, directors, officers or employees of Holdco or any Subsidiary in the ordinary course of business, (f) employment and severance arrangements entered into in the ordinary course of business between Holdco or any Subsidiary and any employee thereof, (g) Restricted Payments permitted under Section 7.06 and (h) the New Mirror Notes and any payments thereon or repurchases thereof to the extent such payments or repurchases are otherwise permitted pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; provided that the foregoing restriction shall not apply to transactions solely between or among any Loan Parties to the extent permitted by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will not request any Borrowing, and the Borrower shall not use, and shall procure that its Subsidiaries and its and their respective directors, officers, employees, Affiliates and agents shall not use, directly or indirectly, the proceeds of any Borrowing, or lend, contribute or otherwise make available such proceeds to any Subsidiary, other Affiliate, joint venture partner or other Person, (a) in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment or giving of money, or anything else of value, to any Person in violation of any Anti-Corruption Laws or AML Laws, (b) for the purpose of funding, financing or facilitating any activities, business or transaction of or with any Sanctioned Person, or in any Sanctioned Country, or involving any goods originating in or with a Sanctioned Person or Sanctioned Country or (c) in any manner that would result in the violation of any Sanctions by any Person (including any Person participating in the transactions contemplated hereunder, whether as underwriter, advisor lender, investor or otherwise).

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: Under the LLC Agreement, certain matters may be submitted to binding arbitration. If, as a result of the institution of any arbitration between HF Member and Skechers Member, the arbitrator determines that there is a resulting change in the Project Schedule, then the Project Schedule shall be modified accordingly.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: On the one hand are Securities and Exchange Commission v. Washington Co. Utility District, 676 F.2d at 224 (manager of public utility district had duty to disclose kickback from underwriter of bond); Edward J. Mawod & Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 591 F.2d 588, 596 (10th Cir.1979) (“where brokers are obligated to investigate, the failure to do so subjects them to a holding that they acted wilfully”); Klein v. Computer Devices, 591 F.Supp. at 280 (duty was breached where aider “participated in the preparation and review of the allegedly defective prospectus and ... actively promoted the sale of shares ... by, for example, orchestrating the entire transaction, placing advertisements and processing purchase orders”); Monsen v. Consolidated Dressed Beef Co., Inc., 579 F.2d 793 (<HOLDING>); Morgan v. Prudential Group, Inc., 527 F.Supp. Options: A. holding that consideration for guaranty of loan previously made was that guarantors friend the bank manager who issued the loan would not lose his job for making a bad loan B. holding title company liable for bad faith C. holding bank liable for making loan to company and then demanding continuation of program where employees without any financial information traded earnings for unregistered subordinated promissory notes D. holding owner of company qualified as an employer due to inter alia his authority to hire and fire employees and overall financial control of company E. holding the bank liable where the bank had almost complete control over the operation of the company during its last three quarters of operation and where withheld taxes were not paid to the irs on instructions from the bank

assistant: The best answer is C. holding bank liable for making loan to company and then demanding continuation of program where employees without any financial information traded earnings for unregistered subordinated promissory notes
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: been shut down, and the loss would have been limited to something less than it wound up being.” Although the language “as a consequence of the offense” mandates a causal connection between the fraud and the loss, we do not read this language to require that all losses associated with a given institution be directly attributable to fraud. We therefore find that the court’s legal conclusion that the enhancement does not apply is irreconcilable with its factual conclusion that $5 to $10 million in losses were caused by the fraud, independent of the initial failure of the rein-surer. The language of § 2F1.1(b)(6) is mandatory, directing the court to “increase by 4 levels” if the factual predicates of the enhancement are met.' See United States v. Tello, 9 F.3d 1119, 1129-30 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Velgar-Vivero, 8 F.3d 236, Options: A. holding that any error by a district court in applying a sentencing enhancement is harmless if it did not change a defendants total offense level B. holding that arithmetical error that resulted in an increase to a defendants base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines affected his substantial rights even though the resulting sentence was within the range for the correct offense level C. holding the issue of standing is waived if not asserted at the district court level D. holding that the district court correctly increased a defendants offense level under ussg 2k21blb because the firearms found at his residence were under his control E. holding that imperative clause in ussg 3e11 directing sentencing court to decrease the offense level by 1 additional level if certain factual predicates are determined eschews any court discretion to act otherwise

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that imperative clause in ussg 3e11 directing sentencing court to decrease the offense level by 1 additional level if certain factual predicates are determined eschews any court discretion to act otherwise
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 has not shown that he was prejudiced. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm PepeFrazier’s convictions. Judgment affirmed. Doyle, P. J., and Miller, J., concur. 1 See, e.g., Muse v. State, 323 Ga. App. 779, 780 (748 SE2d 136) (2013). 2 Id. We note that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Pepe-Frazier’s convictions, though he makes no argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. See id.; see also OCGA § 16-5-46 (c) (“Aperson commits the offense of trafficking a person for sexual servitude when that person knowingly subjects another person to or maintains another person in sexual servitude or knowingly recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means another person for the purpose of sexual servitude. (674 SE2d 280) (2009) (<HOLDING>); Johnson, 328 Ga. App. at 707 (2) (holding Options: A. holding that admission of prior statement constituted error but was harmless when other admissible evidence established the same fact B. holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record C. holding that admission of hearsay was harmless where strong circumstantial evidence established the same facts D. holding that admission of hearsay constituted harmless error when there was more than sufficient other evidence in the record to support the verdict E. holding that admission of hearsay testimony was harmless where the jury heard admissible testimony from three other sources to the same effect

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that admission of prior statement constituted error but was harmless when other admissible evidence established the same fact
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 one or more of the provisions (or any part thereof) of this Plan or of any Agreement issued hereunder, shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such provision shall be modified so as to make it valid, legal and enforceable, and the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions (or any part thereof) of the Plan or of any Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. The Board may, without the consent of any Participant, and in a manner determined necessary solely in the discretion of the Board, amend the Plan and any outstanding Agreement as the Corporation deems necessary to ensure the Plan and all Awards remain valid, legal or enforceable in all respects.

assistant: Severability