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: Terry is to be established by reference to particular facts necessitating the intrusion. Officer Stewart testified to no such facts once he had the purse. We come to this conclusion not because we disagree with the juvenile court with respect to what the facts are — the facts in this case are not in dispute — but rather because we disagree with the juvenile court as to how the law applies to those facts, and it is our responsibility to make that determination de novo. ¶ 32 Because the warrantless search of the purse was not justified under the circumstances, the marijuana pipe should not have been admitted into evidence, and Officer Stewart’s testimony regarding its discovery should not have been permitted at the hearing. See State v. Hunt, 2 Ariz.App. 6, 12, 406 P.2d 208, 214 (1965) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 33 The finding of delinquency is thus Options: A. holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings B. holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings C. holding that an exception to the fourth amendment exclusionary rule applies where the police would have obtained the evidence if no illegality had occurred D. holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid E. holding that the exclusionary rule applies to oral evidence adduced from an officers testimony as to what he saw or found pursuant to an illegal search

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the exclusionary rule applies to oral evidence adduced from an officers testimony as to what he saw or found pursuant to an illegal search
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive’s employment and this Agreement shall terminate automatically at the Executive’s death. If the Executive dies in active service to the Company, the Executive’s estate shall receive any sums due to the Executive as Base Salary and reimbursement of expenses through the end of the month in which death occurs.

assistant: Death
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, taken together with the Trust Agreement, embodies the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, written and oral, relating to the subject matter hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is bound by opinions of the Fifth Circuit decided on or before September 30, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d mall-wood held “the elements to be proved to establish a violation of [§ ] 14(e)” are “identical” to those establishing a violation of § 10(b), Smallwood has been undermined to the point of abrogation by the adoption of Rule 14e-3 and the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in O’Hagan. Because the mandate that a tipper disclose “the inside information for a personal benefit,” arises out of § 10(b)’s requirement that the tipper breach a fiduciary duty, it appears a violation § 14(e) may not require proof that the tipper disclosed the information for a personal benefit. See Salman, 137 S.Ct. at 423; see also SEC v. Downe, 969 F.Supp. 149, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (<HOLDING>). In any event, the Court need not reach this Options: A. holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail B. recognizing rule C. holding that when ruling on a motion under rule 60b1 the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact unless a request is made D. holding that personal jurisdiction is not conferred if service under rule 4 is not properly effected E. holding that a personal benefit to the tipper is not required under rule 14e3

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a personal benefit to the tipper is not required under rule 14e3
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 the Plan shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Texas, United States of America. The venue for any and all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be Harris County, Texas, United States of America, and the courts sitting exclusively in Harris County, Texas, United States of America shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes. Each party hereby expressly consents to the exercise of jurisdiction by such courts and hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives, to the fullest extent it may legally and effectively do so, any objection that it may now or hereafter have to such laying of venue (including the defense of inconvenient forum).

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: raised before the district court. Under Fed. R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3), a suppression issue must be raised before trial, and the failure to raise the issue in a timely pretrial motion results in “waiver” of the matter under Rule 12(f). Frazier, Sr. concedes he was late in raising the issue but contends we may still review the alleged Franks violation for plain error under Rule 52(b). His argument raises the interesting question of whether a court of appeals is barred altogether from reviewing an issue that has been “waived” under Rule 12(f). Compare United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 955 (D.C.Cir.1999) (concluding that plain error review under Rule 52(b) of a “waived” issue would render Rule 12(f) meaningless), and United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127, 129-30 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Buchanon, 72 F.3d 1217, Options: A. holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal B. holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal C. holding that rules 12b3 and 12f along with circuit precedent barred defendant who failed to raise a suppression issue before the district court from raising the issue for the first time on appeal D. holding that where defendant failed to raise defense of plaintiffs fraud in federal court defendant is barred from raising that issue in state court E. holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that rules 12b3 and 12f along with circuit precedent barred defendant who failed to raise a suppression issue before the district court from raising the issue for the first time on appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a pat rly exercised over a foreign corporation”); see also PHC-Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 170; Foster, 2012 WL 170603, at *10 (“The fact that [defendant’s] officers, directors, and employees have occasionally visited Texas and the United States does not subject [defendant] to general jurisdiction.”). We must, however, consider these trips in the context of all of DENSO Japan’s contacts with Texas to determine if DENSO Japan had a general business presence in Texas. See Alenia Spazio, S.p.A. v. Reid, 130 S.W.3d 201, 219-20 (Tex.App t requiring Louisiana-licensed physicians (located in Texas) to provide teleradiology services for which nonresident defendant supplied the necessary equipment in exchange for $1600 per month did not support general jurisdiction); Reid, 130 S.W.3d at 217-18 (<HOLDING>). Constructing contracts to avoid benefiting Options: A. holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident guarantor of debt to texas creditor based only on sending a guaranty agreement to texas and discussing the general pattern of texas cases holding likewise B. holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law not arizona law should be applied C. holding there was no general jurisdiction when there was no evidence that defendants advertised or promoted their goods or services in texas solicited business in texas sold their goods or services to a texas entity established a general business office or general business presence in texas or targeted texas markets D. holding sending two employees to work in texas and using an office in texas for limited purposes did not support finding of general jurisdiction E. holding that isolated trips to texas more than 1500000 in purchases from texas vendors and two contracts with texas entities were not substantial enough to support general jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding sending two employees to work in texas and using an office in texas for limited purposes did not support finding of general 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: a particular degree, license, or education. Id.; Leaf, 590 N.W.2d at 535 (“[N]o particular education is required; experience is sufficient to qualify a witness as an expert.”); Hutchison v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 882, 886 (Iowa 1994) (“Although licensing carries a presumption of qualification to testify in the given field, ‘learning and experience may provide the essential elements of qualifica tion.’” (quoting Ganrud v. Smith, 206 N.W.2d 311, 315 (Iowa 1973))). Rule 5.702 does not impose a requirement for how an expert is to become qualified and does not distinguish between whether an expert is qualified or unqualified based on whether he or she belongs to a particular profession or has a particular degree. Ranes, 778 N.W.2d at 689; see also Hutchison, 514 N.W.2d at 888 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the witness does not need to be a Options: A. holding that refugees who have already acquired lpr status are ineligible for a 209c waiver in light of the language in that adjustment of status can be granted to an alien who has not acquired permanent resident status B. holding that no tax liens may attach to property after the fdic acquired title C. recognizing expertise acquired through experience is every bit as good as expertise acquired academically D. holding statute requiring dealers to keep records of all motor vehicles acquired as junk is lawful E. holding that equity acquired due to improving property is subject to cap

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing expertise acquired through experience is every bit as good as expertise acquired academically
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: if you do not wish your account to renew automatically , or if you want to change or terminate your subscription , please log in and go to `` my profile '' on tinder online and follow the instructions .

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: If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable, this Agreement shall be considered divisible and such provision shall be deemed inoperative to the extent it is deemed unenforceable, and in all other respects this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect; provided , however , that if any provision may be made enforceable by limitation thereof, then such provision shall be deemed to be so limited and shall be enforceable to the maximum extent permitted by Applicable Law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: complaint asserts retaliatory discharge “ 374, 391-92, 400, 115 S.Ct. 961, 970-71, 974-75, 130 L.Ed.2d 902 (1995) (noting in dictum that the statutory provision that Amtrak “will not be an agency or establishment of the United States government” “no doubt ... deprives Amtrak of sovereign immunity from suit,” but holding that Amtrak is “part of the Government” for First Amendment purposes (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Although certainly relevant to the issue of sovereign immunity, the Institute’s nonprofit corporate status is hardly dispositive. Relying on the Institute’s status alone would ignore the governmental nature of its responsibilities and the extensive control the government exerts over Institute operations. Cf. Lebron, 513 U.S. at 400, 115 S.Ct. at 974-75 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the Institute has no role other than Options: A. holding that amtrak is an agency of the government for purposes of the constitutional obligations of government B. holding that amtrak is part of the government for purposes of the first amendment because the government created amtrak by special law to further governmental objectives and retained authority to appoint a majority of amtraks corporate directors C. holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity D. holding that where the government inter alia retains for itself permanent authority to appoint a majority of the directors of a corporation the corporation is part of the government for purposes of the first amendment E. holding that because the government of puerto rico did not appoint any directors to aeelas board the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the third prong of the lebron test therefore aeela was not a government actor

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that amtrak is part of the government for purposes of the first amendment because the government created amtrak by special law to further governmental objectives and retained authority to appoint a majority of amtraks corporate directors
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: new counsel on the day of the hearing was not an abuse of discretion. III. Next we address Redd’s objections to the introduction of United States Exhibits 1A-1F, the test results and chain of custody reports for the six sweat patches. Redd objected to the exhibits as hearsay and as a deprivation of his right to confront adverse witnesses. As an initial matter, we note that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in revocation hearings. Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d)(3) (“The rules ... do not apply in the following situations: ... Proceedings for ... granting or revoking probation ... ”). That is not to say, of course, that all hearsay is admissible. Rather, probationers and parolees enjoy due process and stablished in our circuit. See United States v. Reynolds, 49 F.3d 423, 426 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Zentgraf, 20 F.3d 906, Options: A. holding that it was reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question on the burden of proof for two hours after which the jury returned a verdict B. holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error C. holding that failure to consider guidelines note in applying sentencing enhancement was reversible error D. holding that it was reversible error for a district court to fail to applying a balancing test before admitting oral hearsay testimony recounting a third partys allegations of sexual assault by the probationer E. holding that it was not reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question for fifty minutes after which the jury returned a verdict

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it was reversible error for a district court to fail to applying a balancing test before admitting oral hearsay testimony recounting a third partys allegations of sexual assault by the probationer
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: CURIAM. Donald Green appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In 1997, Green pleaded guilty to one count of possession of cocaine and one count of sale of cocaine. He received a guidelines sentence of twenty-two months’ prison on the former and a concurrent habitual offender sentence of fifteen years’ prison followed by fifteen years’ probation on the latter. At the same time, he also admitted to violating his probation on a 1989 sale of cocaine charge and was sentenced to a concurrent fifteen-year prison sentence with credit for the time he had previously spent in prison on that charge. Green has alleged that his plea was involuntary and his counsel ineffective in several ) (<HOLDING>). Because it is not refuted by record Options: A. holding that in order to establish prejudice based on misadvice regarding sentence length defendant must allege generally that he would not have pleaded but for the bad advice B. holding that the defendant could not prove prejudice from alleged ineffective assistance because he has never claimed that but for counsels errors he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted upon going to trial C. holding that misadvice of counsel as to the length of a sentence is a basis for postconviction relief if not refuted by the record D. holding in the context of a plea that the strickland prejudice prong requires a defendant to demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial E. holding that for a facially sufficient claim that the plea was involuntary based on misadvice of counsel defendant must allege he would not have accepted the plea agreement but for the misadvice

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that in order to establish prejudice based on misadvice regarding sentence length defendant must allege generally that he would not have pleaded but for the bad advice
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: mailing in order to obtain the search warrant needed for its inspection. We only hold that on the facts of this case ...a 29-hour delay between the mailing[] and the service of the warrant cannot be said to be “unreasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. at 253, 90 S.Ct. at 1032-33 (emphasis added); see Place, 462 U.S. at 705 n. 6, 103 S.Ct. at 2643 n. 6 (Van Leeuwen “[ejxpressly limit[ed] its holding to the facts of the case”); see also Anderson, 663 F.2d at 938 (interpreting Van Leeuwen as providing that “[t]he legality of the continuing detention of [validity seized] luggage depends on whether such detention is reasonable, in light of all the surrounding circumstances ” (emphasis added); United States v. Martell, 654 F.2d 1356, 1360 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1213, 103 S.Ct. 3551, Options: A. holding that the circuit judge did not have the authority to extend the thirtyday time limit for filing a notice of appeal B. holding that van leeuwen did not place an outer time limit on the detention of impersonal objects C. holding that the crossappeal time limit is jurisdictional D. holding that claims consideration in bankruptcy has no express time limit E. holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that van leeuwen did not place an outer time limit on the detention of impersonal objects
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: Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). Relator claims all business-related correspondence had previously been sent to the business address of West Side Pawn and that failure to do that in this instance deprived him and other “parties of interest” of adequate notice. The city, which had no way of knowing from the license application that others had an interest in West Side Pawn, sent the revocation notice, as it does routinely, to the name and address on the pawnbroker license. The city council was revoking a license held in relator’s name alone. First-class mail addressed to parties who are known to have an interest is constitutionally sufficient. See Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 116, 77 S.Ct. 200, 202, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, relator is the only complainant Options: A. holding us mail sufficient to give notice but mail cannot be expected to notify person who is missing or unknown B. holding death caused by unknown object provides sufficient notice C. holding that notice by mail or other means as certain to insure actual notice is minimum constitutional precondition D. holding sufficient notice by certified mail to both home address and place of immurement E. recognizing presumption of effective service by regular mail

assistant: The best answer is A. holding us mail sufficient to give notice but mail cannot be expected to notify person who is missing or unknown
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: Pledgor shall pay, and save Agent harmless from, any and all liabilities with respect to, or resulting from any delay in paying, any and all stamp, excise, sales or other taxes which may be payable or determined to be payable with respect to any of the Collateral or in connection with any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and twenty years. Thomas was in fact sentenced to 60 months on one of the firearms counts and to 240 months each on the other two, to be served consecutively to one another and to the sentence on the remaining counts. 4 . Thomas suggests in reply that there was no practical advantage to be gained by conceding guilt as to the UPS robbeiy because the government pursued an aiding and abetting theory at trial. However, mere participation in the UPS robbery would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction on the count charging assault on a federal officer, or on the § 924(c) counts, which require proof that the defendant, in addition to being a participant, used or aided and abetted the use or carrying of a firearm. See, e.g., United States v. Bancalari, 110 F.3d 1425, 1429-30 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Thomas was charged with aiding and abetting Options: A. holding that mere negative acquiescence in the criminal conduct of others even with guilty knowledge is not sufficient to establish aiding and abetting B. holding that no active facilitation of the principals use of the firearm is necessary for an aiding and abetting conviction under 924c C. holding it was not a surprise or unfair to the defendant for the state to pursue a theory of aiding and abetting at trial when the charging document did not refer to aiding and abetting D. holding that to be guilty of aiding and abetting under 924c the defendant must have directly facilitated or encouraged use of the firearm mere presence at the scene of the crime and knowledge that the crime is being committed is not enough E. holding that government proves aiding and abetting of 924c crime when it proves that defendant 1 actively assisted underlying offense or use carry or possession of firearm 2 with advance knowledge of that firearmrelated conduct

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that to be guilty of aiding and abetting under 924c the defendant must have directly facilitated or encouraged use of the firearm mere presence at the scene of the crime and knowledge that the crime is being committed is not enough
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall indemnify members of the Committee and any agent of the Committee who is an employee of the Company, against any and all liabilities or expenses to which they may be subjected by reason of any act or failure to act with respect to their duties on behalf of the Plan, except in circumstances involving such person’s bad faith, gross negligence or willful misconduct.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: All notices or other written communications hereunder shall be made in accordance with (a) Section 10.6 of the Loan Agreement in the case of Lender and Borrower, and (b) the respective Guaranty Agreement executed by Indemnitor in the case of any Indemnitor.

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: at hand precludes. Future claims for future conduct are not included in the release. Indeed, the Settlement Agreement specifically states “nothing in this Release shall be deemed to ... (ii) release a Class Member’s right to assert any claims that independently arise from acts, facts, or circumstances arising exclusively after the end of the Class Period.” (S.A. at 47). The Court overrules the objections by Costello/Robertshaw and Deese that there is no consideration for this release. (See Costello/Robertshaw Obj., Docket Entry # 66; Deese Obj. Docket Entry # 91). This is not a situation where there is “inadequate consideration,” Schwartz, 157 F.Supp.2d at 578 (finding “inadequate consideration”), or where there is “no consideration,” Norman v. McKee, 431 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Sec. Pac. Nat’l Bank v. Options: A. holding no liability existed under the circumstances B. holding that no consideration existed for part of the settlement C. holding no defamation existed D. holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations E. holding that standing existed

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that no consideration existed for part of the settlement
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: holding that statements that a company’s business condition was “bad” and “a matter of survival” implicitly asserted an inability to pay, the Board concluded that Lakeland’s statements “reasonably conveyed a present inability to pay.” Id. at 325 (citing Shell Co., 313 N.L.R.B. 133 (1993)). It is debatable whether these three statements, viewed in isolation, imply an inability to pay, as opposed to a mere unwillingness to pay. When considered in light of the record as a whole, however, it is absolutely clear that the statements do not provide a sufficient basis for the Board’s decision. The Board purports to consider the letter “in context.” Order, 335 N.L.R.B. at 325, 326. Indeed, its own precedents require that it do so. See, e.g., Burruss Transfer, Inc., 307 N.L.R.B. 226, 228 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the Board decision focuses Options: A. holding that the defendant had abandoned any possessory or privacy interest in bags found in the truck he was driving where he stated that he did not own the bags did not know who did and did not know what was in them B. holding that the movants assertion that he failed to advise the plea court of counsels alleged deficiencies because he blamed himself for his lack of funds was undermined by the fact that the plea court advised the movant that he had the right to appointed counsel if he could not afford to pay for counsel C. holding that the need to look to the cba to determine the plaintiffs rate of pay did not trigger preemption D. holding that the pretrial order did not adequately disclose a theory because it did not give notice of that theory E. holding that an employers statement that he did not feel that he could afford the unions proposals did not trigger a duty to disclose because the overall context of bargaining did not suggest an inability to pay

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an employers statement that he did not feel that he could afford the unions proposals did not trigger a duty to disclose because the overall context of bargaining did not suggest an inability to pay
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: as a result , your use of the service will likely result in interstate and possibly international data transmissions , and your use of the service shall constitute your consent to permit such transmissions .

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: (explaining that “[t]he appropriate test for determining the voluntariness of a confession is whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, pressures exerted upon the suspect have overborne his will”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). c. Double Jeopardy Men argues that Ms multiple sentences of life in prison and the death penalty for the same underlying offense violate his right to be free from double jeopardy. Men waived this issue by failing to preserve it for appeal, however, because he did not raise this argument in the district court prior to trial. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2) (requiring that defenses and objections based on defects in an indictment be raised before trial or they are waived); United States v. Prescott, 42 F.3d 1165, 1167 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Shephard, 4 F.3d 647, 650 Options: A. holding failure to brief argument constitutes waiver B. holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error C. holding that appellants failure to raise preemption argument until posttrial motions constitutes waiver of defense D. holding that failure to raise pretrial objection to alleged duplicitous counts in the indictment constitutes waiver of the defense E. holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that failure to raise pretrial objection to alleged duplicitous counts in the indictment constitutes waiver of the 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: (“Given the crowded state of this Court’s calendars, the case would not be tried prior to 1997. [opinion dated May 11, 1995] It is not unrealistic to predict that, if fully litigated, the present class action would not be concluded before the end of this decade ....”); In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, 618 F.Supp. 735, 745 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (“Although much discovery has been conducted, much would remain if the parties were to go to trial.”). 155. In contrast to trying the case, the Proposed Settlement permits a prompt and efficient solution to plaintiffs’ claims against Prudential; the Proposed Settlement would af 8-19 (3d Cir.1990) (finding only twenty-nine objectors from 281-member class “strongly favors settlement”); Weiss v. Mercedes-Benz, 899 F.Supp. at 1301 (<HOLDING>). 157. The Court recognizes that courts are Options: A. holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification B. holding that no class member may opt out of a rule 23b1 class action C. holding that substantial silent consent weighs in favor of certification where approximately 100 out of 30000 class members objected or opted out of class D. recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members E. holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that substantial silent consent weighs in favor of certification where approximately 100 out of 30000 class members objected or opted out of class
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: or money order in payment for internal revenue taxes or internal revenue stamps should be made payable to the United States Treasury ... the term "money order" means: (a) U.S. postal, bank, express, or telegraph money order; (b) money order issued by a domestic building and loan association ... or by a similar association incorporated under the laws of a possession of the United States; (c) a money order issued by such other organization as the Commissioner may designate ... the director may refuse to accept any personal check whenever he or she has good reason to believe that such check will not be honored upon presentment. 26 C.F.R. § 301.6311-1. 15 . The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: "nor shall private property be ta 129 Ct.Cl. 619, 641, 124 F.Supp. 608 (1954) (<HOLDING>); DeRochemont v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 87 Options: A. holding estoppel claim could not lie in tort where the facts that support the claim could not support a claim for fraud or misrepresentation B. holding that the elements of a claim under 3729a2 are 1 that the defendant made used or caused to be made or used a record or statement to get a claim against the united states paid or approved 2 the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent and 3 the defendant knew that the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent emphasis added C. holding that party to contract could not with knowledge of the fraud which had been practiced upon him take any benefit under the contract or change the condition of the property and then repudiate the contract because the taking of a benefit is an election to ratify it D. recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states E. holding that forfeiture of a claim against the united stales is established if any fraud is practiced or attempted to be practiced in proving establishing or allowing a claim

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that forfeiture of a claim against the united stales is established if any fraud is practiced or attempted to be practiced in proving establishing or allowing a claim
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: representation serves to vindicate the trust and reliance that client’s place in their attorneys. A client would feel wronged if an opponent prevailed against him with the aid of an attorney who formerly represented the client in the same matter ... this would undermine public confidence in the legal system as a means for adjudicating disputes. 590 F.2d at 172. See also Doe v. A Corp., 709 F.2d at 1046-1048 (“This broad ethical duty protects not only against disclosure of privileged communications but also against the revelation of confidential information that is not privileged.”); Heartbreak Cabaret Corp. v. Cruz & Toledo Restaurant Corp., 699 F.Supp. 1066, 1070 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (citing Brennan’s); Donohoev. Consolidated Operating & Prod. Corp., 691 F.Supp. 109, 111 n. 4 (N.D.Ill.1988) (<HOLDING>). As the Fifth Circuit sensibly recognized in Options: A. recognizing a broader life interest after a death sentence B. holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality C. recognizing a broader ethical duty of confidentiality D. recognizing a corporations legal rights to confidentiality and privilege E. holding that preventing fraud maintaining ethical standards and privacy were substantial interests

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing a broader ethical duty of confidentiality
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: testimony concerning his qualifications and his resume chronicling his extensive experience as a salvor, we alternatively hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Startz’s knowledge, skill, experience, and training concerning the documentation, evaluation, and liquidation of a variety of types of damaged goods qualified Startz to give an opinion that would be helpful to the finder of fact on that subject — his documentation, replacement valuation, and attempt to liquidate AHC’s inventory of smoke-damaged hats. We overrule the portion of Wise Electric’s second issue to the extent that it may be construed as complaining of Startz’s qualifications to offer replacement-value testimony. See, e.g., Helena Chem, Co. v. Wilkins, 47, S.W.3d 486, 500 (Tex.2001) (<HOLDING>). 29 . Wise -Electric states that “Startz’s Options: A. holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony B. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible C. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify D. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sequestering a criminal defendants fingerprint expert E. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and we need not address the Childers’ other arguments. We affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of the United States. AFFIRMED. 1 . The application of the exception does not depend, however, on whether federal officials actually took public policy considerations into account. All that is required is that the applicable statute or regulation gave the government agent discretion to take policy goals into account. United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 324-25, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 1274-75, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991). The Gaubert Court also clarified that low-level employees making discretionary day-today management decisions based on policy considerations also fall within the exception. Id. at 325, 111 S.Ct. at 1275. 2 .See, e.g., Kiehn v. United States, 984 F.2d 1100 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. United States, 949 F.2d 332 (10th Options: A. holding the government immune from suit because the decision to post warning signs about the danger of scaling cliffs at dinosaur national monument is part of an overall park plan left to the discretion of the nps B. holding united states government is immune from rico suit C. holding that because the spd at issue stated that it is made part of the group policy its terms were sufficient to find that the plan conferred discretion on the plan administrator D. recognizing that the municipal function test is used to determine both whether municipalities are immune from suit and immune from running of statutes of limitations E. holding state immune from suit involving a federal question

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the government immune from suit because the decision to post warning signs about the danger of scaling cliffs at dinosaur national monument is part of an overall park plan left to the discretion of the nps
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: States, 276 U.S. 547, 555-56, 48 S.Ct. 371, 372-73, 72 L.Ed. 693 (1928), where the Supreme Court addressed the rights of a federal corporation which held a security interest in property subject to local taxation. The Court held that even where a federal instrumentality retains a mortgage interest in property, at a tax lien cannot be foreclosed so as to extinguish the FDIC’s interest in the property unless the FDIC consents). Plaintiff claims that the tax liens which arose pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. ch. 60, § 37 violate 12 U.S.C. § 1825(b)(2), which provides that no involuntary lien shall attach to the property of the FDIC. The statute “denies authorities the ability to lien a FDIC property as a vehicle for collection for delinquent tax.” FDIC v. Lowery, 12 F.3d 995, 997 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The sticky issue here is that the FDIC has Options: A. holding that the mortgagee named in the mortgage at the time of the mortgages execution acquired the legal title to the property B. holding that no tax liens may attach to property after the fdic acquired title C. holding that congress has made it clear in amending section 522 that a lien will be deemed to impair an exemption even when there is no equity in the property if the sum of all the liens on the property and the hypothetical value of the exemption without liens exceeds the value of the debtors interest in the property in the absence of liens D. holding that federal government may not under michigan law attach lien to entireties property to satisfy individual tax liability of one spouse E. holding that under michigan law tenants in the entirety possess sufficient property interests for federal tax liens to attach

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that no tax liens may attach to property after the fdic acquired title
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: marijuana in clear view on top of the garbage bag and on Mosb/s seat inside the minivan. The smell alone was enough to give rise to probable cause to search the entire vehicle, including closed containers like the garbage bag. See United States v. Cherry, 436 F.3d 769, 772 (7th Cir.2006) (noting that smell of marijuana is “simple and compelling foundation” for searching entire car); United States v. Wimbush, 337 F.3d 947, 950-51 (7th Cir.2003) (noting that search of car was justified after officer saw open container of alcohol and smelled marijuana); United States v. Mazzone, 782 F.2d 757, 761 (7th Cir.1986) (noting that odor of marijuana provides probable cause to search vehicle at least until likely source of odor is found); United States v. Neumann, 183 F.3d 753, 756 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Hines, 449 F.3d Options: A. holding that because marijuana has a distinct smell the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a vehicle or baggage B. holding the odor of burnt marihuana standing alone provided peace offieers with the requisite probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendants vehicle C. holding that the court of appeals properly concluded that the odor of marijuana emanating from defendants vehicle constituted probable cause to search the vehicle D. holding that alcohol odor provided probable cause to search vehicle for open container and smell of burnt marijuana justified search of entire vehicle for drugs E. holding that the smell of marijuana gave the police probable cause to search the vehicle

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that alcohol odor provided probable cause to search vehicle for open container and smell of burnt marijuana justified search of entire vehicle for drugs
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: dismiss. Third, Steese argues that the police committed prejudicial misconduct by failing to preserve material evidence. After Soules’ truck and trailer were returned to his family, his brother found a gold chain, which belonged to Soules, inside the truck. He informed the police of this, but they were “not concerned.” Later, Soules’ sister found a pair of blood-soaked jeans wrapped in a towel underneath the bed in the trailer. Assuming that the police “had done their job,” Soules’ family simply disposed of the jeans. Due process requires the State to preserve material evidence. State v. Hall, 105 Nev. 7, 9, 768 P.2d 349, 350 (1989). However, this presupposes that the State has possession and control of the evidence at issue. See March v. State, 859 P.2d 714, 716 (Alaska Ct. App. 1993) (<HOLDING>). Here, the police never had control of this Options: A. holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence B. recognizing that to preserve a claim of insufficiency of the evidence a defendant must move for judgment of acquittal when the government rests or at the close of all the evidence C. holding that the states duty to preserve evidence attaches at the time the state has gathered and taken possession of the evidence D. holding that to consider whether to apply a spoliation sanction the evidence must be relevant to an issue in the case and the party who destroyed the evidence must be under a duty to preserve the evidence E. recognizing states duty to preserve relevant evidence where practical

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the states duty to preserve evidence attaches at the time the state has gathered and taken possession of the evidence