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: despite his resignation as vice-president the following day, was apparently the only member of the corporation in attendance. The amendment would have changed the name of the corporation to Word of Life Church, Inc. and would have nullified the original articles of incorporation and by-laws. It also would have created a council of elders and vested this council with complete control over the affairs of the Church, including the ability to dissolve the corporation and distribute its assets. The amendment named Mr. and Mrs. Miller and Ms. Belaviteh elders and officers. Because at most a single member of the corporation voted for the amendment, however, the amendment was ultra vires and of no legal effect. See AGR Halifax Fund, Inc. v. Fiscina, 748 A.2d 1188, 1195 (Del.Ch.1999) (<HOLDING>). On November 10, 1994, the putative council of Options: A. holding that corporation must act in accordance with its charter and bylaws B. holding that a loss occurs and has its inception whether or not the insured knows of it C. holding that when an agency fails to follow the proper procedure under the illinois administrative procedure act for the adoption of rules the rule is invalid D. holding that the departments reasoning that de ceccos failure to provide complete and accurate information in a timely manner and its failure to clarify inconsistencies in its submissions to the record demonstrate that de ceceo has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in this investigation was not an additional finding that de ceceo had failed to act to the best of its ability but rather was a restatement of the facts available finding E. holding a corporate charter amendment was invalid from its inception because the persons voting for its adoption were not then de jure directors

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a corporate charter amendment was invalid from its inception because the persons voting for its adoption were not then de jure 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) The unpaid principal amount of the Term Loans shall bear interest from the Closing Date at a rate per annum that shall at all times be the Applicable Margin plus the Eurodollar Rate in effect from time to time. Interest on the Term Loans shall accrue from and including the Closing Date to but excluding the date of any repayment in full thereof and shall be payable monthly in cash in arrears on the fifteenth day of each calendar month (each such date an “ Interest Payment Date ”).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party shall bear its own expenses in connection with the negotiation of this Agreement, except that the Company shall reimburse the Employee up to $5,000 for legal expenses incurred by the Employee upon the submission by the Employee to the Company of invoices evidencing such expenditures.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and seeking to dismiss the four new claims asserted against them in the amended complaint. Also on January 8, 2010, Wells Fargo filed a supplemental motion to dismiss [26], addressing the new claims against it and renewing its request that all counts be dismissed. II. Discussion The Court must determine whether: (1) Giscombe eliminated the deficiencies of his previous shotgun pleading, and (2) if so, whether the complaint should be dismissed for the other reasons asserted by ABN, Citimortgage, and Wells Fargo in their motions to dismiss. A. Legal Standard The sufficiency of Giscombe’s amended complaint depends on whether it is a shotgun pleading; if so, it will fall short of the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284-85 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The defining characteristic of a shotgun Options: A. recognizing the liberal notice and simplified pleading principles underlying the federal rules of civil procedure B. holding that under leatherman a federal court may not apply a pleading requirement more stringent than that provided for in the federal rules of civil procedure even in 1983 litigation C. holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted D. holding that the fact that federal rule of civil procedure 9b requires a heightened pleading standard for some claims but not for a section 1983 claim against a municipality means that the rules do not require a heightened pleading standard for such a claim E. holding that a shotgun pleading is in no sense the short and plain statement of a claim required by rule 8 of the federal rules of civil procedure

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a shotgun pleading is in no sense the short and plain statement of a claim required by rule 8 of the federal rules of civil procedure
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: failure-to-protect claim. To convince the jury that Wallace and Gallinger violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to stop him from overdosing, Barrett needed to prove that they were deliberately indifferent to an objectively serious risk of harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-37, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d 616, 620 (7th Cir.2003). Barrett presented his own testimony, and testimony from a corroborating witness, cross-examined the defendants, and submitted documentary evidence. Faced with the parties’ conflicting evidence, however, the jury chose to credit the guards’ version of events. Given Barrett’s competent performance at trial, he was not prejudiced by the lack of counsel. See Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 853 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. 1 . To the extent that Barrett Options: A. holding that the defendants right to confrontation under crawford was not violated where the analyst who testified concerning dna evidence testified to his own opinion based on tests run by another analyst B. holding that a fiduciary corporation was a purchaser within the meaning of 12a2 and was entitled to bring suit on its own behalf or on behalf of its clients C. holding court denied party a fundamental right to due process by failing to allow him to present witnesses or testify on his own behalf D. holding prior testimony was admissible where the witness who first testified during a suppression hearing was murdered after he testified where the defendant was represented by counsel who had extensively crossexamined the witness E. holding that refusal to recruit counsel did not prejudice plaintiff who testified on his own behalf crossexamined witnesses and introduced exhibits

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that refusal to recruit counsel did not prejudice plaintiff who testified on his own behalf crossexamined witnesses and introduced exhibits
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 may be terminated by the Purchaser by written notice to the Company, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before January 31, 2019; provided , however , that no such termination will affect the right of any party to sue for any breach of this Agreement or any other Transaction Document by the other party.

assistant: Terminations
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: Borrower has, and at all times shall have obtained, all material permits, licenses, exemptions, and approvals necessary to occupy and operate the Property and Improvements, and shall maintain compliance in all material respects with all Applicable Law applicable to the Property and Improvements and all other applicable statutes, laws, regulations and ordinances necessary for the transaction of its business. The Property is a legal parcel lawfully created in full compliance with all subdivision laws and ordinances or is exempt therefrom.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the present case the Plaintiff did no mailing or transmitting out of state. The bank deposits made by Plaintiff were for services performed in Utah and were deposited in Utah banks. The insurance forms were for services performed in Utah and were delivered to persons in Utah. Plaintiff has shown that, as a business regulated or licensed by the State of Utah, the company participated in accreditation testing by receiving, evaluating, and returning cultures to a company acting on behalf of the State of Utah, but located in the State of California. The court does not find that such activity is engaging in commerce. More importantly, it is only Plaintiffs activities that are relevant to a determination on whether he is an employee “engaged in commerce.” Wirtz, supra, 263 F.Supp. at 233 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff admits that he did not ship any Options: A. holding that an individual debtor not engaged in business is eligible for chapter 11 B. holding individual defendants are not an employer within meaning of title vii C. holding that a religious foundation is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the fair labor standards act D. holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the act E. holding that the facts supporting a claim that an employee is engaged in commerce within the meaning of 207a1 are dependent upon his individual activities not the nature of the employers business

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the facts supporting a claim that an employee is engaged in commerce within the meaning of 207a1 are dependent upon his individual activities not the nature of the employers business
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 questions with respect to the construction of this Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder, shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State of California applicable to agreements made and to be performed entirely in California. Any action or proceeding by either of the parties to enforce this Agreement shall be brought only in a state or federal court located in Orange County in the state of California. The parties hereby irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts and waive the defense of inconvenient forum to the maintenance of any such action or proceeding in such venue.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units are granted to Employee under the Company’s 2017 Stock Award and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which has been previously delivered to Employee and/or is available upon request to the Human Resources Department. All of the applicable terms, conditions and other provisions of the Plan are incorporated by reference herein. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement but not defined herein shall have the same meanings as in the Plan. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this document and mandatory provisions of the Plan, the provisions of the Plan govern. By accepting the grant of Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units, Employee agrees to be bound by all of the terms and provisions of the Plan (as presently in effect or later amended), the rules and regulations under the Plan adopted from time to time, and the decisions and determinations of the Leadership Development and Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) made from time to time with respect to the Plan or this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. Executive may not assign any right or obligation hereunder without Company’s prior written consent. Company may assign its rights and obligations here under to any successor in interest.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law , spotify and all owners of the content make no representations and disclaim any warranties or conditions of satisfactory quality , merchantability , fitness for a particular purpose , or non-infringement .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number if counterparts, including counterpart signature pages or counterpart facsimile signature pages, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

assistant: Counterparts
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: because he has no evidence of similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity. Lupescu relies on the same comparators first asserted in his racial discrimination claim. This reliance is doubly flawed. First, the evidentiary gaps in Lu-pescu’s race discrimination “similarly situated” claim dooms most of this claim as well: there is no evidence that Laurent, Chandler, or Chase was comparable to Lu-pescu, and likewise none that Chase or Hall was treated more favorably. Second, and equally fundamentally, Lupescu points to no evidence that any purported comparator engaged in protected activity. Lupes-cu must produce evidence creating a triable issue of fact that the comparators did not engage in such conduct, see Bellino v. Peters, 530 F.3d 543, 551 (7th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); without that evidence, the court is left to Options: A. holding that caucasian employees who engaged in the same act as the plaintiff but it did not result in injury to others were not similarly situated B. holding that a similarly situated employee is one who is comparable to plaintiff in all material respects C. holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim D. holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated E. holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: enett international usa , llc ( for credit or debit cards issued in the united states excluding american express ) or enett international ( uk ) limited ( for all other cards and all american express cards ) will be identified as the merchant of record .

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: Pursuant to the “forum rule,” the Second Circuit has instructed that courts should use the “prevailing [hourly rate] in the community” in determining the reasonable hourly rate. Id. (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984)). For the purposes of calculating the reasonable hourly rate under the forum rule, the relevant “community” is “the district where the district court sits.” Id. (citing Polk v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 722 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir.1983)); see also Savino v. Computer Credit, Inc., 164 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir.1998) (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing fees so that they were line with other fees awarded in the Eastern District of New York); Luciano v. Olsten Corp., 109 F.3d 111, 115-16 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Further, the cases have emphasized that Options: A. holding that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in considering the prevailing hourly rates in the southern district of new york when awarding attorneys fees B. holding that the district court should have looked to prevailing rates in the area C. recognizing forum selection clause providing that no such claim shall be commenced prosecuted or continued in any forum other than the courts of the state of new york located in the city and county of new york or in the united states district court for the southern district of new york as clear and unambiguous expression of parties selection of exclusive forum in affirming district courts dismissal of action commenced in united states district court for the district of new jersey D. holding that absent other evidence of prevailing market rates the district judge may establish a reasonable rate based on his familiarity with the prevailing rates in the area E. holding that the district court in setting fees appropriately relied upon prevailing market rates in the eastern district of new york where the case was commenced and litigated

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court in setting fees appropriately relied upon prevailing market rates in the eastern district of new york where the case was commenced and litigated
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 accessed or downloaded the app from any app store or distribution platform ( like the apple store , google play , or amazon appstore ) ( each , an `` app provider '' ) , then you acknowledge and agree that :

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: property to another and in turn receives from the latter his property without having an agreed value placed on [either].’ ” Id. (quoting Griswold v. Tucker, 216 S.W.2d 276, 278 (Tex.Civ.App.1948)) (brackets in original). After finding this, the court of appeals applied the canon of statutory construction known as ejusdem generis to the term “other disposition” and stated that: Employment of the doctrine mandates that “other disposition” refer to a transaction of the same general type as a sale or exchange. Therefore, though “other disposition” cannot technically be characterized as a sale or exchange, at the minimum it must meet the threshold test of these two transactions by effecting a transfer of property. See Barnard v. Barnard, 91 Ga.App. 502, 502-503, 86 S.E.2d 533, 536 (1955) (<HOLDING>). Id. See also Corwin v. RCA Corp. (In re Options: A. holding the word passion as applied to a jurys action means anger resentment heat absence of reflection disregard of the rights of others and kindred motives B. holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending C. holding that a partys filing of a statutory disclaimer of all interfering claims does not divest the board of jurisdiction to enter judgment against that party D. holding that since the word sell means to divest ones self of all rights and interest in a thing sold the doctrine of ejusdem generis compels that exchange and dispose also carry that connotation E. holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that since the word sell means to divest ones self of all rights and interest in a thing sold the doctrine of ejusdem generis compels that exchange and dispose also carry that connotation
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 provide this link in the summary judgment evidence. 20 . Guillory, 95 F.3d al 1327. 21 . 397 So.2d 475 (La.1981). 22 . Bazley, 397 So.2d at 481. 23 . Guillory, 95 F.3d at 1327 (citing Kent v. Jomac Products, Inc., 542 So.2d 99, 100 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989)). 24 . 907 F.Supp. 961 (M.D.La.1995). 25 . Charkhian, 907 F.Supp. at 965. 26 . Charkhian, 907 F.Supp. at 965 (citing Keating v. Shell Chem. Co., 610 F.2d 328, 332 (5th Cir.1980)). 27 . 893 F.2d 98 (5th Cir.1990), cert denied, 498 U.S. 817, 111 S.Ct. 60, 112 L.Ed.2d 35 (1990). 28 . Mitc a.1995) (in the same case on summary judgment, the Court held that the employer did not commit an "intentional act” which would lift the bar of suit under the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act); Bankston v. BASF, 827 F.Supp. 1239, (M.D.La.1993) (<HOLDING>). 36 . 872 F.Supp. 1517 (M.D.La.1995). In Options: A. holding that a change in employer from one federal contractor to another caused employees no lack of work B. holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor C. holding that it is not enough that an employees job provides an opportunity to commit an intentional tort D. holding that an employer who commits an intentional tort against his employee cannot claim that the act was accidental so that workers compensation is the employees exclusive remedy E. holding that an employees action against her employer for negligent supervision lies not in tort but with an action for breach of contract

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor
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 shall not be terminated by the merger or consolidation of Company with any corporate or other entity or by the transfer of all or substantially all of the assets of Company to any other person, corporation, firm, or entity. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of any successors, assigns, and administrators of the Company. Employee cannot assign this Agreement or any of the rights, duties, or obligations of Employee under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company agrees to continue and maintain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies covering the Executive at least to the extent provided on the date hereof. Such insurance coverage shall continue as to the Executive even if she has ceased to be a director, member, employee or agent of the Company with respect to acts or omissions which occurred prior to her cessation of employment with, or service as a director of, the Company. Insurance contemplated under this Paragraph 11(b) shall inure to the benefit of the Executive’s heirs, executors and administrators.

assistant: Insurances
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: 490 F.3d 208, 226 (2d Cir.2007); United States v. McDermott, 918 F.2d 319, 326 (2d Cir.1990). To determine whether a variance is prejudicial, the court must decide “whether the variance infringes on the ‘substantial rights’ that indictments exist to protect — ‘to inform an accused of the charges against him so that he may prepare his defense and to avoid double jeop ardy.’ ” United States v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131, 141 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. D’Anna, 450 F.2d 1201, 1204 (2d Cir.1971)). In the Second Circuit, in general, “an indictment date only needs to be substantially similar to the date established at trial.” United States v. Teague, 93 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir.1996) (internal citations and quotations omitted); United States v. Morgenstern, 933 F.2d 1108, 1115 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Options: A. holding the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it may find the defendant guilty of conspiracy if the jury found the defendant agreed with at least one other person where the indictment charged the defendant with conspiring with a single named individual and the evidence tended to show the defendant may have conspired with a number of persons not just the named coconspirator to commit an unlawful act B. holding that the jury need not be specifically instructed to find whether there is a connection between the defendant the weapon and the crime C. holding that the trial court correctly instructed the jury that the defendant had to establish by evidence that outweighed the evidence against him that he lacked the capacity to form specific intent D. holding the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it may find the defendant guilty if the jury found the defendant had conspired with the two coconspirators named in the indictment or both of them or others where evidence tended to show a conspiracy between the defendant and some person other than the named coconspirators E. holding that the district court correctly instructed the jury that there had to be a substantial similarity between the indictment and the proof in order to find the defendant guilty

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court correctly instructed the jury that there had to be a substantial similarity between the indictment and the proof in order to find the defendant guilty
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 shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Kansas and any disputes regarding this Agreement shall be brought in a state district court of Kansas or in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Ninth Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the governing law set forth in the Agreement, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles. In the event that the terms of the Agreement conflict or are inconsistent with those of this Ninth Amendment, the terms of this Ninth Amendment shall govern. The provisions of this Ninth Amendment shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and each of their respective representatives, successors, and assigns. This Ninth Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and both of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. This signed Ninth Amendment or counterparts may be transmitted electronically or stored electronically as a photocopy (such as in .pdf format). The parties agree that electronically transmitted or stored copies will be enforceable as original documents.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: by using the services , you indicate that you understand and consent to the collection , use , and disclosure of your information as described in our privacy policy , which is available at : http://www.onavo.com/privacy_policy .

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: of § 2244(d)(1) where a second or subsequent petition is pending in the state court system.”). Chavis filed a first round of state habeas petitions in the Superior Court in 1993, the Court of Appeal in 1994, and the California Supreme Court in 1997. Although AEDPA took effect on April 24, 1996, Chavis is entitled to tolling for the entire first round of state petitions, which he began before AEDPA was enacted. Therefore, the one-year statute of limitations under AEDPA did not begin ru , 297 F.3d at 812. Therefore, Chavis’s petition was not tolled between May 29, 1998 and January 25,1999, a period of 240 days. Tolling recommenced on January 25, 1999, when Chavis properly filed his Superior Court petition and started a second round of state habeas petitions. See Smith, 297 F.3d at 812 (<HOLDING>). The statute was again tolled during the Options: A. holding that petitioner was dili gent for equitable tolling purposes where petitioner filed state petition two months after conviction was final and filed federal petition seven days after discovering state had denied petition on the merits B. holding that third state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed C. holding that petition was properly filed even though the state court denied it as procedurally barred because the petition was delivered to and accepted by the state court D. holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application without regard to the merits of the petition E. holding that aedpa statute of limitations was tolled during fourmonth delay between date petitioner delivered state habeas petition to prison officials and date petition was stamped as filed in state court even though oklahoma did not apply prisoner mailbox rule

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that petition was properly filed even though the state court denied it as procedurally barred because the petition was delivered to and accepted by the state court
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: Executive acknowledges that the remedy at law for any breach by Executive of this Section 12 may be inadequate and that the damages following from any such breach may not be readily susceptible to being measured in monetary terms. Accordingly, Executive agrees that, upon adequate proof of Executive’s violation of any legally enforceable provision of this Section 12 , DDR will be entitled to immediate injunctive relief and may obtain a temporary order restraining any threatened or further breach. Nothing in this Section 12 will be deemed to limit DDR’s remedies at law or in equity for any breach by Executive of any of the provisions of this Section 12 that may be pursued or availed of by DDR.

assistant: Remedies
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 Termination of Employment shall not affect the continuing operation and effect of Sections 5 through 20 hereof, which shall survive the Termination of Employment and continue in full force and effect with respect to the Company and Executive. Sections 5 through 20 hereof shall also continue in force and effect if Executive’s duties, compensation, title, or location of work for the Company change after this Agreement becomes effective, and any such change will not terminate or invalidate this Agreement or affect or impair its validity and enforceability.

assistant: Survival
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 consider it for that reason. See City of Newark v. Township of Hardyston, 285 N.J.Super. 385, 397, 667 A.2d 193 (App.Div.1995). We prefer, however, to decide the justiciability of plaintiffs claim under § 1983 on a different ground. Plaintiffs § 1983 claim is clearly barred by the statute of limitations even if we assume for the sake of argument that it is not precluded by res judicata. In Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that every § 1983 claim, whatever the facts on which it is based or the nature of the injury sustained, is subject to the statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims in the state where the federal cause of action arose. See Hondo, Inc. v. Sterling, 21 F.3d 775 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In New Jersey, that statute is N.J.S.A. Options: A. holding that federal courts apply the forum states personal injury statute of limitations for section 1983 claims B. holding that a twoyear statute of limitations period applies to all 1983 actions brought in pennsylvania C. holding that 1983 action against state tax assessor for denial of tax abatement was subject to indianas twoyear personal injury statute of limitations D. holding that the statute of limitations for 1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims E. holding that 1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 1983 action against state tax assessor for denial of tax abatement was subject to indianas twoyear personal injury statute of limitations
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: On the Closing Date, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, substantially concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchasers, severally and not jointly, agree to purchase, up to an aggregate of $________ of Shares and Warrants. Each Purchaser’s Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by such Purchaser shall be made available for “Delivery Versus Payment” settlement with the Company. The Company shall deliver to each Purchaser its respective Shares and a Warrant as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a), and the Company and each Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. Upon satisfaction of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Closing shall occur at the offices of EGS or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree. Unless otherwise directed by the Placement Agent, settlement of the Shares shall occur via “Delivery Versus Payment” (“ DVP ”) (i.e., on the Closing Date, the Company shall issue the Shares registered in the Purchasers’ names and addresses and released by the Transfer Agent directly to the account(s) at the Placement Agent identified by each Purchaser; upon receipt of such Shares, the Placement Agent shall promptly electronically deliver such Shares to the applicable Purchaser, and payment therefor shall be made by the Placement Agent (or its clearing firm) by wire transfer to the Company).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of the Loan Documents, the borrowing hereunder and the use of the proceeds thereof, will not violate any material Requirement of Law or any Organizational Document or any material Contractual Obligation of MAC or any of its Subsidiaries, or create or result in the creation of any Lien on any material assets of any of the Borrower Parties.

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Confrontation Clause; (2) that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction on the arson conspiracy count; (3) that the District Court erred in denying his pre-trial motion for severance; (4) that the District Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss counts of the indictment as multiplicious; and (5) that the District Court erred in determining his sentence. We consider each challenge in turn. It is undisputed that the admission into evidence of the co-defendants’ plea allocutions violated defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The Government argues, following our decision in United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219 (2d Cir.2004), that the admission was harmless error. Id. at 222 (<HOLDING>). In undertaking harmless error review, we Options: A. holding that a constitutional error is harmless where it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained B. holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction C. holding that the harmless error test places a burden on the state to prove that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction D. holding that erroneous admission of plea allocutions does not necessitate a new trial as long as the government can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained quoting united states v casamento 887 f2d 1141 1179 2d cir1989 E. holding that before an error can be held harmless the reviewing court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendants conviction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that erroneous admission of plea allocutions does not necessitate a new trial as long as the government can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained quoting united states v casamento 887 f2d 1141 1179 2d cir1989
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: With respect to any Participant who has a Separation from Service, an amount equal to the Participant’s Account balance shall be distributed to the Participant (or, in the case of the Participant’s death, to the Participant’s Beneficiary), in the form of a single lump sum payment or in the form of installment payments as elected by the Participant in the Deferral Agreement for the Plan Year to which such amounts relate. Subject to subsection 9.11 hereof, distribution of a Participant’s Account shall be made or begin within the 90-day period following the Participant’s Separation from Service, or if elected by the Participant in the Deferral Agreement for the Plan Year to which any such amounts relate, 1 or 2 years following the Participant’s Separation from Service (provided, however, that if calculation of the amount of the payment is not administratively practicable due to events beyond the control of the Participant, the payment will be made as soon as administratively practicable).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to determine from an inspection of county records who is the actual owner of any note secured by a deed of trust for which MERS is named as the beneficiary. The familiar county-by-county public recording system has thus been replaced, in significant part, by a largely invisible and not always reliable system of voluntary record-keeping by MERS members. See, e.g., Alan M. White, Losing the Paper— Mortgage Assignments, Note Transfers, and Consumer Protection, 24 Loy. Consumer L.Rev. 468, 502-04 (2012). Further, because the identities of the actual owners of the notes and beneficiaries of the deeds of trust are not public knowledge, renegotiation of m ally opposite conclusions. See, e.g., Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Sw. Homes of Ark., 2009 Ark. 152, 301 S.W.3d 1, 4 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kan. 528, Options: A. holding that because mers receives no payments on the debt it is not the beneficiary even though it is so designated in the deed of trust B. holding that mers is an ineligible beneficiary within the terms of the washington deed of trust act if it never held the promissory note or other debt instrument secured by the deed of trust and that characterizing mers as the beneficiary has the capacity to deceive and may give rise to an action under the consumer protection act C. holding that mers was not the beneficiary of a deed of trust under the oregon trust deed act absent conveyance to mers of the beneficial right to repayment and that mers could not hold or transfer legal title to the deed as the lenders nominee D. holding that mers is capable of being a valid beneficiary of a deed of trust and that while entitlement to enforce both the deed of trust and the promissory note is required to foreclose nothing requires those documents to be unified from the point of inception of the loan E. holding that mers may be a beneficiary as nominee for the lender that assignments of the deed of trust between mers members need not be recorded that mers was not liable to the borrower in negligence and that the idaho consumer protection act did not provide a cause of action to the borrower

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that because mers receives no payments on the debt it is not the beneficiary even though it is so designated in the deed of trust
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: 1413 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 697, 1445, 2101; see also Donahue v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 600, 606 n. 2 (1995) (quoting this portion of the legislative history and accepting the premise that agencies other than the IRS were not previously allowed setoff against tax refunds). But this statement is flatly contradicted by numerous early cases in which the government did set off tax refunds against nontax liabilities. See, e.g., Cherry Cotton Mills v. United States, 327 U.S. 536, 537, 66 S.Ct. 729, 90 L.Ed. 835 (1946) (involving a debt owed to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a federal agency, that was set off as an allowable counterclaim against one of its debtors in a suit by that debtor for a tax refund); Luther v. United States, 225 F.2d 495 (10th Cir.1954) (<HOLDING>); Malman v. United States, 202 F.2d 483, 485 Options: A. holding that a shareholders status as a guarantor of a corporations debts did not give him standing to assert individual claims against the directors of the corporation where the shareholder was not seeking to enforce any specific obligations owed to him under the terms of the guarantee B. holding that the code excepts from discharge debts resulting from agreements by the debtor to hold the debtors spouse harmless on joint debts to the extent those debts are in the nature of alimony maintenance or support C. holding that when one corporation transfers its assets to another the receiving corporation is not responsible for debts of transferor unless it agrees to assume these debts D. holding that resident shareholder of s corporation is eligible for tax credit for taxes paid by corporation in another state and noting that this conclusion is consistent with the internal revenue code which provides that shareholders of an s corporation are entitled to a foreign tax credit for their share of foreign income tax paid by an s corporation E. holding that secretary of treasury may set off tax overpayments against debts owed to the commodity credit corporation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that secretary of treasury may set off tax overpayments against debts owed to the commodity credit corporation