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: record. When Brown heard that the prosecutor agreed to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea if the sentence exceeded a 14-year “cap,” Brown understandably believed that he would receive a sentence no greater than that unless he went to trial. II. Because the petitioner’s habeas petition was filed after the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996), the AEDPA applies to his case. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). The AEDPA contains the well-known provisions requiring deferential review of state court decisions applying federal constitutional law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(l)-(2); Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785-86, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Peak v. Webb, 673 F.3d 465, 472 (6th Options: A. recognizing that decisions of lower federal courts interpreting federal law are not binding on state courts B. holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts C. holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court D. holding that when presented with petitioners claim based upon state and federal law and the state court confined its analysis to state law aedpa deference does not apply E. holding that the aedpa requires federal habeas courts to review state court decisions with deference and latitude and a state courts determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as fairminded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the state courts decision quoting yarborough v alvarado 541 us 652 664 124 sct 2140 158 led2d 938 2004

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the aedpa requires federal habeas courts to review state court decisions with deference and latitude and a state courts determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as fairminded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the state courts decision quoting yarborough v alvarado 541 us 652 664 124 sct 2140 158 led2d 938 2004
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in that provision. I, however, focus on the phrase “upon consideration of,” which I believe has the same meaning and effect as “consider.” We have recognized that a statute requiring a government official to “consider” certain factors “implfies] wide areas of judgment and therefore of discretion.” Carolina Tobacco Co. v. Bureau of Customs and Border Prot., 402 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Sec’y of Agric. v. Cent. Roig Refining Co., 338 U.S. 604, 611-14, 70 S.Ct. 403, 94 L.Ed. 381 (1950)). In Carolina Tobacco, we added that “[i]n considering the factors, the port director may give them whatever weight he deems appropriate; he may conclude that particular factors should be given no weight whatsoever.” Id.; cf. Brehmer v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 294 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, in Central Roig the Supreme Court Options: A. holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union B. holding that proof of discrimination offered by the plaintiff was insufficient to support a punitive damages award in light of the employers belief that its actions were required by a collective bargaining agreement C. holding that a job transfer provided as a reasonable accommodation under the rehabilitation act did not conflict with a collective bargaining agreement when the agreement included a provision authorizing transfers and requiring a seniority preference in transfers ejxcept in the most unusual of circumstances D. holding that the administration complied with a provision of the collective bargaining agreement requiring it to give consideration to nondisciplinary measures in certain circumstances when it considered the possibility of additional training but concluded that in light of the failure of the prior retraining to improve brehmers performance additional retraining would be ineffective E. holding that oral agreement made in connection with reinstatement should be treated as part of collective bargaining agreement

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the administration complied with a provision of the collective bargaining agreement requiring it to give consideration to nondisciplinary measures in certain circumstances when it considered the possibility of additional training but concluded that in light of the failure of the prior retraining to improve brehmers performance additional retraining would be ineffective
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: this interpretation, insisting that its construction requires the court to pick a penalty between $25,000 and $50,000. Gov’t Reply Br. 6 n. 1; see Oral Arg. Recording 54:03-54:19. We have difficulty seeing how the government’s construction yields that result, at least without considerable verbal gymnastics. Finally, whatever the persuasiveness of the government’s “disgorgement” rationale for penalizing the payee in the full amount of the payment, it does not apply to the penalty imposed on the payor. The payor has no “ill-gotten gains” to disgorge; to the contrary, it is already out the amount it paid. Yet 86, 1992 WL 46682, at * 1 (9th Cir. Mar.12, 1992) (noting “that good faith [i]s not a defense to a general intent crime”); United States v. Champegnie, 925 F.2d 54, 55 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Liparota, 471 U.S. at 425 n. 9, 105 Options: A. holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief B. holding that because the government need not show that a defendant specifically intended to disobey the law in order to prove a violation of 8 usc 1326 which makes it a felony for a previously deported alien to reenter the united states without the express permission of the attorney general the defendants good faith or mistaken belief that she could reenter lawfully is not a defense C. holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states D. holding that alien on student visa could not lawfully possess intent to be domiciled in the united states E. recognizing that the plain language of 1326a establishes that a previously deported alien who illegally enters and remains in the united states can violate the statute at three different points in time namely when the alien 1 enters 2 attempts to enter or 3 is at any time found in the united states

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that because the government need not show that a defendant specifically intended to disobey the law in order to prove a violation of 8 usc 1326 which makes it a felony for a previously deported alien to reenter the united states without the express permission of the attorney general the defendants good faith or mistaken belief that she could reenter lawfully is not a defense
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: Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Thus, at this stage of these proceedings, the Court must decide whether the Sykes are entitled to offer evidence to support their claims, not whether they will ultimately prevail. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), abrogated on other grounds by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). In doing so, the Court may consider “official public records” that are relevant to the Sykes’ claims without converting Bayer’s motion to one for summary judgment. See Gasner v. County of Dinwiddle, 162 F.R.D. 280, 282 (E.D.Va.1995); see also Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2509, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007) (<HOLDING>). III. First, the Sykes claim that Bayer is Options: A. holding that a court may rely on documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice in deciding whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted B. holding that in considering a rule 12b6 motion a court may only rely on the complaint its proper attachments documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice C. holding that 1 the complaint is deemed to include any documents incorporated in it by reference and any document upon which it solely relies and which is integral to the complaint and that the court may consider such documents on a motion to dismiss pursuant to fedrcivp 12b6 D. holding that a court may consider documents that have not been incorporated by reference where the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effect which renders the document integral to the complaint E. holding that a court in deciding a rule 12b6 motion may consider a document that is incorporated by reference into the complaint

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a court in deciding a rule 12b6 motion may consider a document that is incorporated by reference into the complaint
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: Effective from and after the Agreement Date, Licensor and, for so long as they retain any right in any Licensed Intellectual Property, the Additional Parties, if any, having any right in any of the Licensed Intellectual Property shall, and shall cause each of their respective controlled Affiliates having any right in any of the Licensed Intellectual Property to, do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve, renew and keep in full force and effect its legal existence. In addition, effective from and after the Agreement Date, Licensor and, for so long as they retain any right in any Licensed Intellectual Property, the Additional Parties, if any, having any right in any of the Licensed Intellectual Property, shall not, and shall cause each of their respective controlled Affiliates having any right in any of the Licensed Intellectual Property (for so long as such controlled Affiliates have any right in any of the Licensed Intellectual Property ) not to, commence or file any petition seeking (i) liquidation, reorganization or other relief in respect of any of Licensor, the Additional Parties, if any, having any right in any of the Licensed Intellectual Property or any of their respective Affiliates having any right in any of the Licensed Intellectual Property, or any of their respective debts, or of a substantial part of their respective assets, under any U.S. Federal, U.S. state, Danish or other bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar Law now or hereafter in effect or (ii) the appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian, sequestrator, conservator or similar official for any of Licensor, any of its controlled Affiliates having any right in any of the Licensed Intellectual Property or, for so long as they retain any right in any Licensed Intellectual Property, the Additional Parties, if any, having any right in any of the Licensed Intellectual Property, in each case for a substantial part of their respective assets.

assistant: Existence
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 Landlord nor Tenant shall be liable (by way of subrogation or otherwise) to the other party (or to any insurance company insuring the other party) for any personal injury or loss or damage to any of the property of Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be, with respect to their respective property, the Building, the Property or the Premises or any addition or improvements thereto, or any contents therein, to the extent covered by insurance carried or required to be carried by a party hereto even though such loss might have been occasioned by the negligence or willful acts or omissions of the Landlord, the Building Manager, or Tenant or their respective employees, agents, contractors or invitees. Since this mutual waiver will preclude the assignment of any such claim by subrogation (or otherwise) to an insurance company (or any other person), Landlord and Tenant each agree to give each insurance company which has issued, or on the future may issue, policies of insurance, with respect to the items covered by this waiver, written notice of the terms of this mutual waiver, and to have such insurance policies properly endorsed, if necessary, to prevent the invalidation of any of the coverage provided by such insurance policies by reason of such mutual waiver. For the purpose of the foregoing waiver, the amount of any deductible applicable to any loss or damage shall be deemed covered by, and recoverable by the insured under the insurance policy to which such deductible relates. In the event that Tenant is permitted to and self-insures any risk for which insurance is required to be carried under this Lease, or if Tenant fails to carry any insurance required to be carried by Tenant pursuant to this Lease, then all loss or damage to Tenant, its leasehold interest, its business, its property, the Premises or any additions or improvements thereto or contents thereof shall be deemed covered by and recoverable by Tenant under valid and collectible policies of insurance. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Landlord shall not be liable to the Tenant or any insurance company (by way of subrogation or otherwise) insuring the Tenant for any loss or damage to any property, or bodily injury or personal injury or any resulting loss of income or losses from worker’s compensation laws and benefits, even though such loss or damage might have been occasioned by the negligence of Landlord, its agents or employees, or Building Manager, if any such loss or damage was required to be covered by insurance pursuant to this Lease.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 4.7 , there are no actions, suits, or proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of Borrowers, after due inquiry, threatened in writing against a Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries for which, either individually or in the aggregate, there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse determination that, if adversely determined, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change.

assistant: Litigations
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 Third Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Borrowers, the Banks, the Issuing Banks and the Administrative Agent and their respective successors and assigns, except that the Borrowers shall not have the right to assign their rights hereunder or any interest herein.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: determined the amount it would allow such a creditor to reach are besides the point. 6 .Both the trustee and the bankruptcy court proceeded on the assumption that the Trust interest was acquired "by bequest, devise or inheritance” and therefore embraced by section 541(a)(5)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. Under that provision, income payments from a trust (including a spendthrift trust) which the beneficiary is entitled to receive within 180 days after the filing of the bankruptcy are brought into the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(5)(A); Matter of Moody, 837 F.2d 719, 723 (5th Cir.1988). However, as Neuton correctly points out, and as the BAP agreed, the Fannie Borun Trust was an intervivos trust, unaffected by § 541(a)(5)(A). See Newman v. Magill, 99 B.R. 881, 884-85 (C.D.Ill.1989) (<HOLDING>). 7 . For analogous, prospective constructions Options: A. holding that income payment debtor received from spendthrift trusts or was entitled to receive by terms of the trusts within 180 days of filing of debtors bankruptcy petition constituted bequests and became property of debt ors estate under 541a5a B. holding county does not fit statutory definition of victim under restitution statutes C. holding that distributions from an inter vivos trust do not qualify as bequests and 541a5a does not operate to bring such distributions into the bankruptcy estate D. holding that defendants met the test for individual liability under 3713 and were personally liable for distributions made from decedents estate and trust E. holding that income distributions derived from an intervivos trust do not fit within the definition of 541a5a and therefore escape the pale of the 180 day dragnet

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that income distributions derived from an intervivos trust do not fit within the definition of 541a5a and therefore escape the pale of the 180 day dragnet
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: Effective on the Effective Date (as defined below), Agent and the Required Lenders hereby (i) consent to the Transaction, including, without limitation, to Gichner’s execution of the Raytheon Security Agreement, (ii) consent to Agent’s execution of the Raytheon Subordination Agreement, and (iii) waive any Event of Default that would otherwise occur under the Credit Agreement solely as a result of the Transaction. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, the consent and waiver by Agent and the Required Lenders under this Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed: (a) to modify or otherwise affect any of the provisions of the Credit Agreement or the other Loan Documents, (b) as a waiver of any of Agent’s or any Lender’s rights under the Credit Agreement or any other Loan Document, or (c) as an authorization or a consent by Agent and the Lenders to any further actions by any Credit Party not otherwise permitted by the Loan Documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement or about the validity, interpretation, effect or alleged violation of this Agreement (an “ arbitrable dispute ”) must be submitted to confidential arbitration in Houston, Texas. Arbitration shall take place before an experienced employment arbitrator licensed to practice law in such state and selected in accordance with the Model Employment Arbitration Procedures of the American Arbitration Association. Arbitration shall be the exclusive remedy of any arbitrable dispute. The Company shall bear all reasonable documented out-of-pocket fees, costs and expenses of arbitration, including those of Executive unless the arbitrator finds that Executive has acted in bad faith and provides otherwise with respect to the fees, costs and expenses of Executive; provided, however, in no event shall Executive be chargeable with the fees, costs and expenses of the Company or the arbitrator. Should any party to this Agreement pursue any arbitrable dispute by any method other than arbitration, the other party shall be entitled to recover from the party initiating the use of such method all damages, costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of the use of such method. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, nothing in this Agreement shall purport to waive or in any way limit the right of any party to seek to enforce any judgment or decision on an arbitrable dispute in a court of competent jurisdiction. Each party hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in Houston, Texas, for the purposes of any proceeding arising out of this Agreement. However, this arbitration agreement shall not apply to any claim: (i) for workers’ compensation or unemployment benefits; or (ii) by Company for injunctive and/or other equitable relief for unfair competition and/or the use and/or unauthorized disclosure of Trade Secrets or Confidential Information, including but not limited to, matters described in Sections 11 and 12, or with respect to the matters described in Sections 13 and 16. With respect to matters referred to in the foregoing sub-paragraph (ii), the Company may seek and obtain injunctive relief in court, and then proceed with arbitration under this Agreement.

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: If a Recipient or its Representatives are requested or required (by oral questions, interrogatories, other requests for information or documents in legal proceedings, subpoena, civil investigative demand or other similar process) to disclose any of the Evaluation Material or any of the facts disclosure of which is prohibited under Section 4 above, such Recipient shall provide Provider with prompt written notice of any such request or requirement together with copies of the material proposed to be disclosed so that Provider may seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy and/or waive compliance with the provisions of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that no instruction directly explained to the jury that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that O’Connell’s criminal conduct was voluntary. The trial court’s instructions informed the jury (1) that the State was required to prove that O’Connell was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) also instructed that he could be convicted only if he voluntarily engaged in the conduct in violation of the statute defining the offenses. These instructions, considered as a whole, in reference to each other and not in isolation, adequately explained to the jury the State’s burden of proving that O’Connell’s actions were voluntary. Simply put, the instructions as a whole did not misstate the law or otherwise mislead the jury. See Hurt v. State, 570 N.E.2d 16, 18 (Ind.1991) (<HOLDING>). Under these facts and circumstances, the Options: A. holding defendant must act with specific intent to cause death of another in order to be convicted of attempted murder B. holding that the jury instructions taken as a whole sufficiently informed the jury of the states burden of proving that the defendant specifically intended to kill the victim C. holding that there was no error where one instruction did not inform the jury that in order to convict defendant of attempted murder the evidence must show that defendant had a specific intent to commit murder but where subsequent instruction did inform jury of this requirement and concluding that the instructions when read as a whole adequately informed the jury of the requirement of specific intent to kill D. holding good faith jury instruction is not necessary when the court has given an adequate specific intent instruction E. holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that there was no error where one instruction did not inform the jury that in order to convict defendant of attempted murder the evidence must show that defendant had a specific intent to commit murder but where subsequent instruction did inform jury of this requirement and concluding that the instructions when read as a whole adequately informed the jury of the requirement of specific intent to kill
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: court properly applied the enhancement based on a detailed analysis of Ibrahim’s perjurious testimony at trial, noting that “the defendant’s lies were so brazen and so abundant” that it was “almost difficult to know where to start.” The application of the two enhancements by the district court without jury findings as to the supporting facts did not violate Apprendi. Because the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), application of guidelines enhancements that do not increase the statutory maximum or minimum penalty neither implicates nor violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. See Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2162-64, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Singletary, 458 Options: A. holding that under the sixth amendment any fact which increases the penalty for a crime eg by triggering a mandatory minimum sentence must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt B. holding that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury but emphasizing that ruling does not mean that any fact that influences judicial discretion when imposing a sentence within the range prescribed by statute must be found by a jury C. holding it permissible to increase a mandatory minimum sentence based solely on facts found by the sentencing judge D. holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to the jury E. holding any fact other than prior conviction that increases statutory mandatory minimum is element of offense that must be submitted to jury and found beyond reasonable doubt

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury but emphasizing that ruling does not mean that any fact that influences judicial discretion when imposing a sentence within the range prescribed by statute must be found by a jury
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the term of his employment under this Agreement, the Executive shall be permitted to participate in any group life, hospitalization or disability insurance plans, health (including dental) programs, pension and profit sharing plans and similar benefits that may be available to other senior executives of the Company generally, on the same terms as may be applicable to such other executives, in each case to the extent that the Executive is eligible under the terms of such plans or programs. During the term of his employment under this Agreement, the Company or the Trust, as applicable, shall maintain customary liability insurance for trustees and officers and list the Executive as a covered officer.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: all of our rights and obligations under our terms are freely assignable by us to any of our affiliates or in connection with a merger , acquisition , restructuring , or sale of assets , or by operation of law or otherwise , and we may transfer your information to any of our affiliates , successor entities , or new owner .

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: In the event Tenant is a corporation, the persons executing this Lease on behalf of Tenant hereby covenant and warrant that they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Lease on behalf of Tenant; Tenant is a duly qualified corporation and all steps have been taken prior to the date hereof to qualify Tenant to do business in the state where the Building is situated; all franchise and corporate taxes have been paid to date; and all future forms, reports, fees and other documents necessary to comply with applicable laws will be filed when due.

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: claims essentially as claims for benefits, ... and the fact that whatever constitutional claims respondents assert are clearly too insubstantial to support subject matter jurisdiction, ... we view this case as involving only respondents’ Part A claims. Ringer, 466 U.S. at-n. 4, 104 S.Ct. at 2018 n. 4, 80 L.Ed.2d at 632 n. 4. Other courts have concluded that Ringer does not bar such claims. See Hatcher v. Heckler, 772 F.2d 427, 430-32 & n. 7 (8th Cir.1985) (concluding that constitutional challenges to the Medicare Act itself are not precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) because such claims are "collateral to, and not ‘inextricably intertwined with,’ claims for entitlement”); Michigan Academy of Family Physicians v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 757 F.2d 91, 93-94 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted sub nom. Heckler v. Michigan Options: A. holding that heckler v ringer does not bar constitutional and statutory challenge to regulation promulgated by secretary for health human services when this challenge is unrelated to a claim for benefits B. holding constitutional challenge to void statute may be raised for first time on appeal C. holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended D. holding the failure to comply with the act does not bar defendant from raising a constitutional challenge to jury selection procedures E. recognizing that categorical constitutional challenge was fundamentally similar to asapplied constitutional challenge initially raised on appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that heckler v ringer does not bar constitutional and statutory challenge to regulation promulgated by secretary for health human services when this challenge is unrelated to a claim for benefits
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company agrees to reimburse Indemnitee in full for any Expenses incurred by Indemnitee in connection with investigating, preparing for, litigating, defending or settling any action brought by Indemnitee under Section 10(a) above, or in connection with any claim or counterclaim brought by the Company in connection therewith, whether or not Indemnitee is successful in whole or in part in connection with any such action.

assistant: Expenses
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 BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ITS PRINCIPLES OR RULES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS TO THE EXTENT SUCH PRINCIPLES OR RULES ARE NOT MANDATORILY APPLICABLE BY STATUTE AND WOULD REQUIRE OR PERMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION.

assistant: Applicable 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: is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” (emphasis added)); Brace, 634 F.3d at 1169-70 (affirming the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of a petitioner’s § 2241 petition, where the petitioner could not meet § 2255(e)’s savings clause); see also Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir.2010) (concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s § 2241 petition because he failed to meet the Fourth Circuit’s savings clause test); Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 961-62 (9th Cir.2008) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to meet the Ninth Circuit’s savings clause test); cf. Palma-Sala-zar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1038 (10th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we construe the district court’s Options: A. holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to 2241 petitions B. holding that a 2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under 2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction C. holding that prisoners challenge to his sentencing enhancement under 841 and 846 was not cognizable under 2241 D. holding claim is not cognizable E. holding that 2241 was the proper statute for the petitioners pretrial double jeopardy challenge

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a 2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under 2241 and therefore the district 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: of his experts) in a timely manner and, consequently, his testimony, which included references to Jones’s claims against Central Baptist Hospital and Lexington Manor, should have been excluded. We assign no merit to Essie’s complaints relative to Hattwick’s testimony. As there are no precise standards for qualification of an expert, it has long been that the decision as to qualifications of a witness as an expert rests within the discretion of the trial court. Any lack of specialized training goes only to the weight, not to the competency, of the evidence. See Arndale v. 31, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (refusing to extend new exclusionary rule to state convictions that had become final); and Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U.S. 358, 53 S.Ct. 145, 77 L.Ed. 360 (1932) (<HOLDING>). In James B. Beam Distilling Co., 111 S.Ct. at Options: A. holding antiwaiver provision of securities laws does not prevent enforcement of contract provision choosing english forum B. holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law C. holding federal law does not prevent a state from choosing between prospective operation of its decision and that of relation backward D. recognizing similarities between illinois and federal law on relation back E. holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief

assistant: The best answer is C. holding federal law does not prevent a state from choosing between prospective operation of its decision and that of relation backward
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 Hueytown, 920 So.2d 1075, 1077-78 (Ala.2005). Discussion Our caselaw is clear that sheriffs and their deputies enjoy State immunity under § 14 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901. “ ‘Generally, sheriffs enjoy State immunity under § 14 from actions against them in their individual capacities for acts they performed in the line and scope of their employment. [Ex parte] Davis, 930 So.2d [497,] 500-01 [(Ala.2005)] (noting in an action against a deputy sheriff that “a claim for monetary damages made against a constitutional officer in the officer’s individual capacity is barred by State immunity whenever the acts that are the basis of the alleged liability were performed within the course and scope of the officer’s employment”); see also [Ex parte] Hale, 6 So.3d [452,] 457 [(Ala.2008)] (<HOLDING>). This immunity is not unlimited and, in Options: A. holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county B. holding that acts by a sheriff which gave rise to the plaintiffs claim against him were taken in the execution of his duties as sheriff and thus the sheriff was immune under 14 from an action seeking damages against him in his individual capacity C. holding that under north carolina law a sheriff is an agent of the office of the sheriff and an officialcapacity suit against him is a suit against that office D. holding that the sheriff when investigating crimes acts as a county officer E. holding a suit against a sheriff in his individual capacity was subject to section 1146llls notice requirements because the sheriff was acting in his official capacity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that acts by a sheriff which gave rise to the plaintiffs claim against him were taken in the execution of his duties as sheriff and thus the sheriff was immune under 14 from an action seeking damages against him in his individual capacity
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: officers could avoid illegal “entry” into a home simply by remaining outside the doorway and controlling the movements of suspects within through the use of weapons that greatly extend the “reach” of the arresting officer. United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d at 1166 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 626 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir.1980)). Applying the principle idea taken from United States v. Johnson, the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Morgan determined that warrantless control of a suspect inside his own home constitutes a seizure. See id. The Tenth Circuit has similarly accepted the notion that “[ojpening the door to one’s home is not voluntary if ordered to do so under color of authority.” United States v. Reeves, 524 F.3d at 1167. See United States v. Flowers, 336 F.3d at 1226 (<HOLDING>). In his affidavit, Matthew Smith presents a Options: A. holding that an unconstitutional seizure occurred when police officers discovered that a suspect illegally sold alcohol from his home and ordered him to open the door involuntarily to be arrested inside his home B. holding that officers order to roll down window or open door creates a temporary seizure C. holding that police orders to openthe door which led to an arrest inside the home represented an unconstitutional seizure D. holding that no search occurred when police officers entered an open business E. holding that if a residents decision to open his door to police is made involuntarily a seizure within his home has occurred

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that if a residents decision to open his door to police is made involuntarily a seizure within his home has occurred
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: even if dispute would be futile, because the FDCPA requires that notice be given, that the debtor be informed of his or her rights to dispute and obtain validation of the debt, and a proper notice of dispute triggers the debt collector’s obligation to obtain and provide the debtor with validation, including a copy of a judgment, I cannot say that plaintiff has failed to state a claim. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. 4 . Circuits are split on whether applying the unsophisticated consumer standard to collection notices and letters under the FDCPA is a matter of law for judges to decide or a question of fact better left to juries. Compare Johnson v. Revenue Mgmt. Corp., 169 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir.1999); Kistner v. Law Offices of Michael P. Margelefsky, LLC, 518 F.3d 433, 440-41 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) with Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, Options: A. holding that actual apportionment of damages is a question of fact B. holding that estoppel was a question of fact C. holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact D. holding violation of cpr is a question of law not fact E. holding it is a question of fact

assistant: The best answer is E. holding it is a question of 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the indefinite or generalizing force of “a” or “an.” ’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Sibenaller v. Milschewski, 379 Ill. App. 3d 717, 722, 884 N.E.2d 1215, 1219 (2008), quoting Brooks v. Zabka, 168 Colo. 265, 269, 450 P.2d 653, 655 (1969). Applying this principle, a compelling argument can be made that the legislature’s use of the language “the proximate cause” illustrates an intent to focus on the one most immediate, efficient, and direct cause preceding an injury. See Robinson v. City of Detroit, 462 Mich. 439, 459-60, 613 N.W.2d 307, 317 (2000). Alternatively, the language “a proximate cause” merely requires that the State establish that the accused’s actions were a contributing cause of the victim’s injuries. People v. Merritt, 343 Ill. App. 3d 442, 448, 797 N.E.2d 1103, 1107 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, because section 31 — 1 is Options: A. holding that victims injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle when the victim received injuries from a gun fired in the vehicle B. holding a person commits aggravated dui when his or her driving under the influence was a proximate cause of the injuries citation not the sole and immediate cause of the victims injuries emphasis omitted C. holding hospital employees testimony regarding victims previous injuries was inadmissible under the common scheme or plan exception because there was no clear and convincing evidence defendant inflicted the injuries D. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury E. holding the plaintiff must show that the defendants departure from such generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a person commits aggravated dui when his or her driving under the influence was a proximate cause of the injuries citation not the sole and immediate cause of the victims injuries emphasis omitted
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 proceeds of Revolver Loans shall be used by Borrowers solely (a) to satisfy existing Debt; (b) to pay fees and transaction expenses associated with the closing of this credit facility; (c) to pay Obligations in accordance with this Agreement; and (d) for lawful corporate purposes of Borrowers, including working capital. Borrowers shall not, directly or indirectly, use any Letter of Credit or Loan p roceeds, nor use, lend, contribute or otherwise make available any Letter of Credit or Loan proceeds to any Subsidiary, joint venture partner or other Person, (i) to fund any activities of or business with any Person, or in any Designated Jurisdiction, that, at the time of issuance of the Letter of Credit or funding of the Loan, is the subject of any Sanction; or (ii) in any manner that would result in a violation of a Sanction by any Person (including any Secured Party or other individual or entity participating in a transaction).

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: Any Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, the Borrowers or the Administrative Agent, sell participations to any Person (other than a natural person or any Loan Party or any Loan Party’s Affiliates or Subsidiaries) (each, a “ Participant ”) in all or a portion of such Lender’s rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Loans owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender’s obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations and (iii) the Borrowers, the Administrative Agent, the Lenders, and the Issuing Lenders shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender’s rights and obligations under this Agreement.

assistant: Participations
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: Landlord and Tenant each represents and warrants that it has not dealt with any broker, agent or other person (collectively, “Broker”) in connection with the transaction reflected in this Fifth Amendment and that no Broker brought about this transaction, other than Transwestern RBJ and Cushman & Wakefield. Landlord and Tenant each hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any claims by any Broker claiming a commission or other form of compensation by virtue of having dealt with Tenant or Landlord, as applicable, with regard to this leasing transaction.

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: Notices by Buyer to Guarantor may be given in writing and sent prepaid by (a) hand delivery, (b) certified or registered mail, (c) expedited commercial or postal delivery service, or (d) email if also sent by one of the foregoing, to the address or email set forth under Guarantor’s signature below or such other address as Guarantor shall specify from time to time in a notice to Buyer. Any of the foregoing communications shall be effective when delivered, if such delivery occurs on a Business Day; otherwise, each such communication shall be effective on the first Business Day following the date of such delivery. Notices to Buyer by Guarantor may be given in the manner set forth in the Repurchase Agreement.

assistant: Notices