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: To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment at 1-2. While the sociological constructs that differentiate "national origin” from "race" are complex and beyond the scope of this Order, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not described his race other than to state that he is of Puerto Rican ancestry. But see Cariddi v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., 568 F.2d 87, 88. (8th Cir.1977) (discussing section 1981 cases in which Puerto Rican plaintiff claimed national origin discrimination and not racial discrimination). 2 . Plaintiff's Complaint titles Count I as "Violation of Section 1981," but Plaintiff explicitly alleges Title VII violations against Defendants in his Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 2a, as well as implicitly at ¶ 28. See also Ferrill v. The Parker Group, Inc., 168 F.3d 468, 472 (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). 3 . Plaintiff alleges Options: A. holding that title vii precludes a claim under section 1981 for racial discrimination against a federal employee B. holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotive theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination C. holding that direct evidence of discrimination is not required to prove discrimination in mixed motive cases under title vii D. holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotives theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination E. recognizing that the test for intentional discrimination in suits under 1981 is the same as the formulation used in title vii discriminatory treatment cases

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the test for intentional discrimination in suits under 1981 is the same as the formulation used in title vii discriminatory treatment cases
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: judgment motion by mail does not implicate Rule 6(e), because Martin’s deadline depended on the date that Akzo filed its summary judgment motion with the court. To the extent that Martin views his error as excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), he is mistaken. Martin’s ignorance of local rules or misconstruction of their applicability does not constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 357 (5th Cir.1993) (“Gross carelessness, ignorance of the rules, or ignorance of the law are insufficient bases for 60(b)(1) relief.”). In addition, Martin’s misinterpretation of the Rule 6(e) does not constitute the type of excusable neglect required to reopen a case under Rule 60(b)(1). Midwest Employers Casualty Co. v. Williams, 161 F.3d 877 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Because Martin’s misinterpretation of Local Options: A. holding that the misinterpretation of rule 6e did not rise to the level of excusable neglect where the plaintiffappellee believed he had three additional days to file a motion for a new trial because the courts judgment was served by mail B. holding that misplacing the notice of an appealable order was not excusable neglect C. holding that trial court has no power to allow party to amend motion for new trial more than thirty days after trial court signed the final judgment and that denial of amended motion for new trial filed more than thirty days after judgment preserved nothing for appellate review D. holding that a second motion to reconsider served within ten days of the denial of the first motion does not extend the time period for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment E. holding that jurisdiction in the district court was terminated by the trial courts order to close the case and that dss was required to file a new petition alleging neglect

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the misinterpretation of rule 6e did not rise to the level of excusable neglect where the plaintiffappellee believed he had three additional days to file a motion for a new trial because the courts judgment was served by mail
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In full and complete consideration for the Employee’s promises and undertaking set forth in this Agreement, following the eighth (8 th ) day following receipt by the Company of a fully executed General Settlement and Release Agreement from the Employee, the Company will provide the Employee the consideration, if any, to which the Employee is entitled pursuant to the Employment Agreement between the parties, dated ______________, 2016, at the times specified in Section 5 of that Agreement unless the signature on this Agreement is revoked pursuant to Section 8 below.

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: K&S Diversified Invs., Inc., 308 B.R. 448, 460 (B.A.P 9th Cir. 2004), aff’d by unpublished opinion, 160 Fed. Appx. 644 (9th Cir. 2005)). The court thus reversed the summary judgment dismissal against the bankruptcy trustee. Id. The court, however, affirmed the trial court’s application of judicial estoppel to the debtors and barred them “from receiving any benefit from the suit in the event of a recovery.” Id. ¶12 Federal bankruptcy courts have taken the same approach, holding that bankruptcy debtors and trustees have separate identities for purposes of judicial estoppel. E.g., Cheng, 308 B.R. at 455, 457 n.4 (“[A] trustee ordinarily may not be judicially estopped on account of an earlier inconsistent position taken by the debtor.”); In re Lopez, 283 B.R. 22, 27 (B.A.P 9th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>); accord Wood v. Household Fin. Corp., 341 B.R. Options: A. holding that reopening a closed case to file a reaffirmation agreement is not permitted by the bankruptcy code B. holding that a corporate chapter 7 debt ors malpractice claim against its bankruptcy attorney was related to its bankruptcy case C. holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court D. holding that a bankruptcy appellate panel abuses its discretion by preventing a bankruptcy trustee from reopening a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding when reopening the case would potentially benefit creditors E. holding that reopening closed case was necessary for bankruptcy court jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a bankruptcy appellate panel abuses its discretion by preventing a bankruptcy trustee from reopening a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding when reopening the case would potentially benefit creditors
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 shall not, and shall not permit any Loan Party to, voluntarily prepay any principal of, or interest on, any other Debt except (i) the Obligations in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, (ii) Indebtedness owed to any Loan Party, (iii) payment of regularly scheduled interest and principal payments as and when due in respect of any Indebtedness permitted by Section 7.8 and (iv) any payment to the extent immediately before and after giving effect thereto no Default or Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing in respect of Section 7.14.

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: law, when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition before the foreclosure sale deed is recorded. A. § 1322(c)(1) and Foreclosure Sales Under West Virginia Law Section 1322(c)(1) provides, “a default with respect to ... a lien on the debtor’s principal residence may be cured ... until such residence is sold at a foreclosure sa ach to § 1322(c)(1) and conclude that the right to cure a default terminates once the hammer falls at the foreclosure sale. Other courts have recognized that this plain meaning reading of the statute is at odds with its intent as expressed in the legislative history and have, therefore, adopted a more expansive reading requiring an examination of state law to determine when the property is actually sold. See, e.g. In re Beeman, 235 B.R. 519, 525 (Bankr.D.N.H.1999) (<HOLDING>); Christian v. Citibank, F.S.B., 214 B.R. 352, Options: A. holding that the debtor is entitled to cure the arrearage until entry of an order confirming the foreclosure sale completes the foreclosure process under oklahoma law B. holding that the debtors were entitled to cure the mortgage arrearage through their chapter 13 plan because the creditors failure to record the sale deed prior to the bankruptcy filing rendered the sale incomplete under state law C. holding that the debtors could cure the default until the delivery of a sheriffs deed to the successful purchaser rendering the sale complete under new jersey state law D. holding chapter 13 plan funded by sale of property was not feasible where the debtor had not stated the time period or terms of the sale and no provision was made for failure to sell the property E. holding that the debtors could cure their arrearage until the expiration of the 10day upset bid period which would render the foreclosure sale complete under north carolina law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the debtors were entitled to cure the mortgage arrearage through their chapter 13 plan because the creditors failure to record the sale deed prior to the bankruptcy filing rendered the sale incomplete under state law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and its terms shall be kept confidential by Employee, except that Employee may disclose the terms of this Agreement to Employee’s attorneys and accountants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit Employee from confidentially or otherwise (without informing the Company) communicating or filing a charge or complaint with a governmental agency or regulatory entity, participating in a governmental agency or regulatory investigation, or giving truthful testimony or disclosures to a governmental agency or regulatory entity, or if properly subpoenaed or otherwise required to do so under applicable law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: By accepting this Award, the Participant expressly warrants that he or she has received a right to an equity based award under the Plan, and has received, read, and understood a description of the Plan. The Participant understands that the Plan is discretionary in nature and may be modified, suspended, or terminated by the Company at any time.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: involved plain error because the defendant failed to timely object to the error, id. at 634, 122 S.Ct. 1781, not harmless error as is the case here. The crucial consideration in Cotton was that, because the evidence at trial was overwhelming and uncontroverted, “the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 632-33, 122 S.Ct. 1781. Here, because Lewis’s case does not involve review for plain error, the issue of whether the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings is not before us. See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (noting that this is a question fer plain-error review); see also Jordan, 291 F.3d at 1096 n. 7 (<HOLDING>); Mackins, 315 F.3d at 409 (distinguishing Options: A. recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt B. holding that harmless error analysis is inappropriate in a powers case C. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error D. holding that cotton does not control nor aid our analysis because that case was analyzed under plain error not harmless error E. holding that omission was not plain error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that cotton does not control nor aid our analysis because that case was analyzed under plain error not harmless error
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: upon termination of your account , you will no longer be able to access your account or access ( or transfer or direct the transfer to any other account ) any content or data you have stored on the servers .

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: the loss to the owner of the houses destroyed, is a doctrine well established in the common law."); Hale v. Lawrence, 21 N.J.L. 714, 730 (N.J.1848) ("[In a densely populated town, all may unite in destroying a building to stop a conflagration which threatens destruction to the rest."); Respublica v. Sparhawk, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 357, 363, 1 L.Ed. 174 (Pa.1788) ('Houses may be razed to prevent the spreading of fire, because [of] the public good."); The Case of the King's Prerogative in Saltpetre, (1606) 77 Eng. Rep. 1294 (K.B.) (analogizing taking saltpeter from a private landowner during wartime to destruction to prevent the spread of fire). 50 . See Muller, supra note 44, at 508-10; see also Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1029 n. 16, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 LEd.2d 798 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 51 . 101 U.S. 16, 18, 25 L.Ed. 980 (1879). 52 Options: A. recognizing that there is no compensable taking when the states destruction of property is done in cases of actual necessity to prevent the spreading of a fire or to forestall other grave threats to the lives and property of others B. holding that provocation is a proper defense to the charge of malicious destruction of property C. holding that the fact that the fire was communicated to other property may reasonably be inferred from common knowledge of the operation of the established laws of nature in the familiar forms of combustion and the effects of wind on fire D. holding person is at grave risk of death when directly in the line of fire or when in a zone of danger E. holding that a taking occurred where flooding of the plaintiffs property amounted to an almost complete destruction of the value of the land

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that there is no compensable taking when the states destruction of property is done in cases of actual necessity to prevent the spreading of a fire or to forestall other grave threats to the lives and property of others
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 defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as that “which does not finally determine a cause of action but only decides some intervening matter pertaining to the cause, and which requires further steps to be taken in order to enable the court to adjudicate the cause on the merits.” Black’s Law Dictionary 815 (6th ed. 1990). The default order standing alone is not decisive or conclusive of the rights of the parties to the discrimination complaint. At most, the decision of the chief legal counsel amounted to a finding of liability, without any damages being decided. A finding of liability alone on a claim seeking damages does not dispose of the subject matter of that claim until damages have been determined. Stotlar Drug Co. v. Marlow, 239 Ill. App. 3d 726, 728, 607 N.E.2d 346 (1993) (<HOLDING>). In its petition for rehearing, the Department Options: A. holding an order of default was not final where it resolved only the question of liability and the case was continued for proof on the issue of damages B. holding that an order establishing liability but referring the issue of damages to arbitration is not final C. holding that where the district court decided two issues in the certified order but identified only the damages issue as the controlling question of law the court of appeals could nonetheless address the other issue D. holding that rule 6e motion filed after criminal proceedings terminated was independent proceeding and that order entered was final and appealable under 1291 because it conclusively resolved disclosure issue which was only issue raised E. holding that the order on the wifes petition for modification of child support was a final order because it disposed of all the issues except for the ancillary issue of attorneys fees

assistant: The best answer is A. holding an order of default was not final where it resolved only the question of liability and the case was continued for proof on the issue of damages
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment shall become effective, and this Amendment thereafter shall be binding on the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, as of the First Amendment Closing Date upon the execution and delivery of counterparts by the parties hereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The headings of the paragraphs and sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and will not be deemed a part of or affect the construction or interpretation of any provision hereof. The language used in this Agreement will be deemed to be the language chosen by the parties hereto to express their mutual intent, and no rule of strict construction will be applied against any party.

assistant: Headings
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: upon receipt of payment by enett international usa , llc ( for credit or debit cards issued in the united states excluding american express ) or enett international ( uk ) limited ( for all other cards and all american express cards ) , your obligation to the accommodation provider is extinguished .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Plan and actions taken in connection with it shall be governed by the laws of Ohio, without regard to the principles of conflict of laws. The Plan is not intended to be governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and shall be so construed and administered.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 24, 1996). Nonetheless, the three-part test is "to be considered in determining whether the requisite minimum contacts [are] present....” Id. 3 . There appears to be no dispute that there is no general jurisdiction over Defendant. Regardless, the Court need not address the issue of general jurisdiction here because it finds it has specific jurisdiction over Defendant. 4 . Claim .1 of -the ’511 Patent states in relevant part: A method of intercepting bed bugs between a leg of a [piece of furniture] and" a floor, comprising placing a bed bug intercepting device on the floor under the leg of the [piece of furniture] with a lower end of the leg received on a bottom wall of an inner most receptacle to provide a path for bed bugs departing fro d 56, 63 (D.P.R. 2012) (<HOLDING>); Orbit Irrigation Prod., Inc. v. Melnor, Inc., Options: A. holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court in the defendants absence did not afford defense counsel an opportunity to present information in mitigation of punishment B. holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment C. holding that defendant failed to allege any strategy which defense counsel used or failed to use because a third party had agreed to pay the legal fees D. holding that california defendants use of resellers did not afford the court specific jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to allege the resellers sold any of the infringing products in the relevant district E. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that california defendants use of resellers did not afford the court specific jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to allege the resellers sold any of the infringing products in the relevant district
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: rule. Id. at 538-40, 78 S.Ct. at 901-02. The Court first explained that the state rule was not “an integral part of the special relationship created by the [workers’ compensation] statute”, but was “merely a form and mode of enforcing the immunity ... and not a rule intended to be bound up with the definition of the rights and obligations of the parties”. Id. at 536, 78 S.Ct. at 900. In addition, the federal policy of having juries decide disputed questions of fact was an “essential characteristic” of the federal system, strongly influenced by the Seventh Amendment. Id. at 537-38, 78 S.Ct. at 900-01. For the Court, the importance of this federal policy outweighed the state rule. The Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965) (<HOLDING>), does not prevent us from applying Byrd to the Options: A. holding that a federal district court sitting in diversity must apply its forum states choice of law rules B. holding that state substantive rules of decision apply in federal diversity cases C. holding that federal courts sitting in diversity shall apply state substantive law D. holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case E. holding that federal court sitting in diversity should apply fed r crv p 4 rather than conflicting state rule because federal rule was consistent with rules enabling act

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that federal court sitting in diversity should apply fed r crv p 4 rather than conflicting state rule because federal rule was consistent with rules enabling 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company represents and warrants that the undersigned has the authority to act on behalf of the Company and to bind the Company and all who may claim through it to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Employee represents and warrants that the Employee has the capacity to act on the Employee’s own behalf and on behalf of all who might claim through the Employee to bind them to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

assistant: Authority
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: N.Y.S.2d 392, 623 N.E.2d at 522 (recognizing that collateral estoppel principles had hardly been applied in criminal cases); Page, 185 Ill.Dec. 475, 614 N.E.2d at 1167 (collateral estoppel principles more commonly used in civil cases); see also Vestal, Res Judicata/Preclusion at 346 n. 7 (finding it interesting that 1942 Restatement of Judgments completely excluded criminal cases from its scope). The “efficiency concerns that drive the collateral estoppel policy on the civil side are not nearly as important in criminal cases because criminal cases involve a public interest in the accuracy and justice of criminal results that outweighs the economy concerns that undergird the estoppel doctrine.” Rodriguez, 11 S.W.3d at 322, quoting U.S. v. Mollier, 853 F.2d 1169, 1175-77 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). These public interest concerns apparently Options: A. holding that nonmutual collateral estoppel has no application in criminal cases B. holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims C. recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings D. holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel E. holding that the debtor has the burden of showing that collateral estoppel applies

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that nonmutual collateral estoppel has no application in criminal cases
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Person will have, as a result of the transactions contemplated by the Loan Documents, any valid right, interest or claim against or upon the Broker or the Lender for any commission, fee or other compensation pursuant to any agreement, arrangement or understanding entered into by or on behalf of the Lender.

assistant: Brokers
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: At the closing of the sale and purchase pursuant to this Section 3.01, the Seller shall deliver to the Buyer a certificate or certificates representing the Option Shares, accompanied by stock powers and all necessary stock transfer taxes paid and stamps affixed, if necessary, against receipt of the Exercise Price.

assistant: Closings
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, during the Term, either Party learns of any actual, alleged or threatened infringement by a Third Party of any Synlogic Delivered Microbe Patent Rights or Company Patent Rights, such Party shall promptly notify the other Party and shall provide such other Party with available evidence of such infringement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: sex offenders, Bender, 566 F.3d at 752, whereas the district court here imposed the ban on pornography after a discussion of Demers’s background and characteristics, including his prior child pornography arrests and domestic battery offenses, citing “the need to curb any tendency you might have to further engage in child pornography efforts or abuses.” Moreover, even were we to find that the district court erred in not conducting a sufficiently individualized determination, that error likely would not “affect[ ] substantial rights,” Davis, 452 F.3d at 994, since Demers’s offense and history, including his prior conviction for sexual abuse, make it unlikely that he could carry his burden of showing that the condition would not have been imposed in any event. Cf. Curry, 627 F.3d at 315 (<HOLDING>). Demers also argues that special condition 7 Options: A. holding that a condition banning pornography prejudiced the defendant because there was a reasonable probability that the condition would not have been imposed had the district court conducted a sufficiently individualized determination given that the defendants conviction was for a registration offense not a sexual exploitation offense B. holding that a defendant must show reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea C. holding that that the trial court erred when it determined that firstdegree sexual offense was an aggravated offense D. holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense E. recognizing that before a special condition of probation may be imposed there must be an oral pronouncement of the condition at sentencing

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a condition banning pornography prejudiced the defendant because there was a reasonable probability that the condition would not have been imposed had the district court conducted a sufficiently individualized determination given that the defendants conviction was for a registration offense not a sexual exploitation offense
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has determined that “[a]s a practical matter, if a plaintiff demonstrates both a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, it almost always will be the case that the public interest will favor the plaintiff.” AT & T v. Winback & Conserve Program, 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 n. 8 (3d Cir.1994). Moreover, many co 29 F.3d 1343, 1347 (10th Cir.1997) (stating, in context of a request for injunctive relief, that “the public interest ... favors plaintiffs’ assertion of their First Amendment rights”); G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Com’n, 23 F.3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir.1994) (noting “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights”); Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176, 1190 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that the public interest in Options: A. holding that an employees speech which concerns the alleged abuse of public office occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of first amendment values B. recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child C. holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer D. recognizing strong interest in protecting texas citizens where tort was committed in whole or in part in texas E. holding the strong public interest in protecting first amendment values favored preliminary injunctive relief

assistant: The best answer is E. holding the strong public interest in protecting first amendment values favored preliminary injunctive relief
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: Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement will conflict with or constitute on the part of the Company a breach of or default (or an event which, with notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute a default) or give rise to any right of termination, amendment, cancellation or acceleration under (a) its certificate of incorporation, as amended, including the certificates of designation of any preferred stock of the Company; (b) its by-laws, as amended; (c) any loan or credit agreement, note, bond, mortgage, indenture, lease, permit, concession, franchise, license, contract, agreement or other instrument, arrangement, understanding or obligation to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party or by which any of them or any of their properties or assets may be bound; or (d) the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “ DGCL ”), or any other federal, state or local law, statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any decree, writ, injunction, judgment or order from any court or governmental or regulatory authority of the United States, any State or locality thereof or any foreign jurisdiction (each, a “ Governmental Authority ”) or any arbitration award which is either applicable to, binding upon or enforceable against the Company. Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, the Company’s grant to Investors of the rights set forth in Article 4 do not, and when and if exercised by Investors in accordance with their terms will not, conflict with or constitute a default or breach under any of the items described in clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) that are applicable to the Company, including the Restated Certificate (it being understood that the Company is not representing that the exercise of the rights set forth in Article 4 would not result, directly or indirectly, in a Noncompliance Event (as defined in the Restated Certificate) under the Restated Certificate).

assistant: No Conflicts
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 obligations of the parties to this Agreement shall not be assignable or delegable, except that (i) in the event of the Executive’s death, the personal representative or legatees or distributees of the Executive’s estate, as the case may be, shall have the right to receive any amount owing and unpaid to the Executive hereunder and (ii) the rights and obligations of the Company hereunder shall be assignable and delegable in connection with any subsequent merger, consolidation, sale of all or substantially all of the assets or equity interests of the Company or similar transaction involving the Company or a successor corporation. The Company shall require any successor to the Company to expressly assume and agree to perform this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that the Company would be required to perform it if no such succession had taken place.

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: (citing United States v. Ross, 654 F.2d 612, 616 (9th Cir.1981)). The twist in this case comes about because there was no timely motion to stay the mandate; this court did issue its mandate and then denied Pete’s motion to recall the mandate. With the mandate in effect, the district court resumed jurisdiction over the case. See United States v. Ruiz-Alvarez, 211 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir.2000) (“Once a mandate issues, ... jurisdiction over a criminal case automatically revests in the district court.”) (emphasis in original). As a result, the government did not have to, and did not, wait until the Supreme Court denied Pete’s cer-tiorari petition before filing the indictment in the district court. Instead, the indictment was filed while Pete’s certiorari petitio ; Crooks II, 826 F.2d at 5 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Van Brandy, 726 F.2d 548, Options: A. holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties B. holding that the longer appeal period from a judgment controlled over the shorter appeal period in a certiorari proceeding when the two proceedings were consolidated in the district court and the certiorari proceeding was not an independent proceeding C. holding that even though the trial date had already been set and the motion or proceeding actually caused no delay in the start of the trial the period of pendency of the motion or proceeding was nonetheless excludable D. holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified E. holding that whether a pretrial motion actually caused or is expected to cause delay of trial is irrelevant to the speedy trial act

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that even though the trial date had already been set and the motion or proceeding actually caused no delay in the start of the trial the period of pendency of the motion or proceeding was nonetheless excludable
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: To the extent requested by the Company and at mutually agreeable times and upon reasonable notice from the Company, Executive agrees to assist the Company in the prosecution or defense of any threatened or pending litigation, administrative proceeding, or government investigation in which the Company or any of its affiliates is a party and which concerns matters arising during the term of Executive’s employment by the Company, including but not limited to providing requested information, reviewing documents or other information concerning Executive’s employment with the Company (but not any claims arising under this Agreement), participating in telephonic and/or in-person meetings and preparing materials to assist with such actual or threatened legal action. The Company will use commercially reasonable efforts to arrange such cooperation so as not to unreasonably interfere with Executive’s subsequent employment or business ventures or academic pursuits, including to the extent practical scheduling such cooperation outside of business hours at Executive’s request. Executive agrees to maintain the confidentiality of any information that Executive learns in the course of providing the foregoing cooperation. Executive further agrees to use reasonable efforts to promptly notify the Company’s General Counsel by phone and electronic mail, in the event Executive is contacted by anyone regarding any pending or threatened litigation, administrative proceeding, or government investigation in which the Company is involved in any manner. The Company agrees to reimburse Executive for any reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses associated with such cooperation.

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: the obviousness analysis, the problem examined is not the specific problem solved by the invention but the general problem that confronted the inventor before the invention was made.”). The problem is not properly framed as creating an internal regenerating dryer for a IMS detector device designed for field use that is capable of regenerating while the detector operates (i.e., is capable of continuous use), nor is it properly framed in reference to an IMS detector dryer that never needs to have its desiccant replaced. Such constructions would improperly rely on hindsight to define the problem, and in actuality, come closer to defining the problem as it existed for Smiths while it tried to play “catch-up” after Morpho’s Itemizer 3 product was commercialized. See Mintz, 679 F.3d at 1377 (<HOLDING>); cf. Nascom Video Depo. 46:3-46:17 (testimony Options: A. holding that the district court committed legal error by using a survey to define the meaning of a phrase and then insisting that verification meet the standards thus established B. holding that district court error was not clear error because no prior ninth circuit authority prohibited the course taken by the district court C. holding the district court committed reversible error by certifying a class with respect to fraud claim D. holding that a reviewing court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error E. holding that the district court committed error by using the invention to define the problem that the invention solves

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court committed error by using the invention to define the problem that the invention solves
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Parties shall hold, and shall cause its representatives to hold, in confidence all documents and information furnished to it by or on behalf of the other Parties in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby pursuant to the terms of the Mutual Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement dated August 31, 2016 between the Purchaser and Leland E. Boren (the “ Confidentiality Agreement ”), which shall continue in full force and effect until the Closing, at which time such Confidentiality Agreement and the obligations of the parties under this Section 6.2 shall terminate, except as otherwise set forth in the Confidentiality Agreement. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 8.1 , the Confidentiality Agreement shall continue in accordance with its terms.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and each Other Document (unless and except to the extent expressly provided otherwise in any such Other Document), and all matters relating hereto or thereto or arising herefrom or therefrom (whether arising under contract law, tort law or otherwise) shall, in accordance with Section 5-1401 of the General Obligations Law of the State of New York, be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. Any judicial proceeding brought by or against any Credit Party with respect to any of the Obligations, this Agreement, the Other Documents or any related agreement may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction in the State of New York, United States of America, and, by execution and delivery of this Agreement, each Credit Party accepts for itself and in connection with its properties, generally and unconditionally, the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the aforesaid courts, and irrevocably agrees to be bound by any judgment rendered thereby in connection with this Agreement. Each Credit Party hereby waives personal service of any and all process upon it and consents that all such service of process may be made by certified or registered mail (return receipt requested) directed to Borrowing Agent at its address set forth in Section 16.6 and service so made shall be deemed completed five (5) days after the same shall have been so deposited in the mails of the United States of America, or, at Agent's option, by service upon Borrowing Agent which each Credit Party irrevocably appoints as such Credit Party's Agent for the purpose of accepting service within the State of New York. Nothing herein shall affect the right to serve process in any manner permitted by law or shall limit the right of Agent or any Lender to bring proceedings against any Credit Party in the courts of any other jurisdiction. Each Credit Party waives any objection to jurisdiction and venue of any action instituted hereunder and shall not assert any defense based on lack of jurisdiction or venue or based upon forum non conveniens. Each Credit Party waives the right to remove any judicial proceeding brought against such Credit Party in any state court to any federal court. Any judicial proceeding by any Credit Party against Agent or any Lender involving, directly or indirectly, any matter or claim in any way arising out of, related to or connected with this Agreement or any related agreement, shall be brought only in a federal or state court located in the County of New York, State of New York.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: judge exercised discretion by declining to award the $80 claimed cost of the sneakers as too speculative and uncertain. Although it was error for the trial court to preclude defense counsel from inquiring into Pyle’s possible bias, that error did not have a “substantial and injurious” effect on the issue of the appropriate amount of restitution. Accordingly, the error was harmless. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Superior Court’s restitution judgment is affirmed. 1 . This first ruling is referred to in this Opinion as the “Marijuana Ruling." 2 . The trial judge’s second ruling is referred to as the "Threatening Call Ruling.” 3 . Filmore v. State, 813 A.2d 1112, 1116 (Del.2003). 4 . Jenkins v. State, 2004 WL 2743556, at *1-3, 2004 Del. Lexis 549, at *5-10 (Del. Nov. 23, 2004) (<HOLDING>). 5 . McGriff v. State, 672 A.2d 1027, 1030 Options: A. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating B. holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel does not attach until a prosecution is commenced that is at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings C. holding that because the violation of probation vop hearing was neither a criminal prosecution nor a formal trial the sixth amendment does not apply D. holding probation revocation is not a stage of a criminal prosecution E. holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that because the violation of probation vop hearing was neither a criminal prosecution nor a formal trial the sixth amendment does not apply