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: the registered images. “Copying” is a judicial shorthand for the infringement of any of a copyright owner’s exclusive rights. Worlds of Wonder, Inc. v. Veritel Learning Systems, Inc., 658 F.Supp. 351, 354 (N.D.Tex.1986); see 11 U.S.C. § 106 (setting forth a copyright owner’s rights). Because direct proof of copying is rarely available to a copyright owner, copying is normally shown by proving (a) that a defendant had access to the copyrighted work; and (b) substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the accused work. Lakedreams, 932 F.2d at 1107. Alternatively, where proof of access is absent, copying may be proved by showing a “striking similarity” between the copyrighted work and the accused work. Ferguson v. National Broadcasting Co., 584 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Webbworld cannot claim to have Options: A. recognizing that identity of a substance as cocaine may be proved by circumstantial evidence B. holding that criminal conduct of which defendant is acquitted may be used as sentencing factor if proved by preponderance of the evidence C. holding that if two works are so strikingly similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation copying may be proved without a showing of access D. recognizing that a partial new trial may be granted if the issue of damages is so distinct and independent that it can be separately tried E. holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that if two works are so strikingly similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation copying may be proved without a showing of access
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 each applicable Installment Date, the Company shall pay the Installment Amount by either (i) converting such Installment Amount into shares of Common Stock of the Company (a “ Company Conversion Payment ”) in accordance with this Section 3, provided that there is not then an Equity Conditions Failure, nor is the Company Installment Conversion Payment Limitation exceeded, (ii) paying to the Holder of this Debenture a cash amount equal to the Installment Amount plus the applicable Cash Payment Premium (collectively, a “ Company Cash Payment ”), or (iii) electing a combination of a Company Conversion Payment and a Company Cash Payment so long as all of the outstanding applicable Installment Amount shall be paid (whether in cash or converted into shares of the Company’s Common Stock as provided for herein) subject to the provisions of this Section 3.

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: The Company shall at all times during the Term and continuing until the end of the Termination Period (A) comply in all material respects with Applicable Law affecting its rights and obligations under this Agreement and be responsible for compliance with Applicable Law of any aspect of the Program that was imposed by the Company on the Bank in accordance with the Company’s breaking of a deadlock with respect to any element of operations because such element of operations was an Unapproved Matter that was a Company Matter, and (B) comply in all material respects with its obligations pursuant to the Operating Procedures. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Company shall retain any applicable liability for compliance with law pertaining to its business as a retailer (including laws with respect to the sale of illegal Goods and Services and state laws designed to prevent unlawful gambling). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall have no liability hereunder for a failure to comply with requirements of Applicable Law related to the Credit Cards or Accounts or their solicitation, associated documentation or servicing or maintenance if the Bank is required to, but has not notified the Company of such requirement of Applicable Law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on appeal. 3 In State v. Ferguson, 202 Wis. 2d 233, 549 N.W.2d 718 (1996) (Ferguson II), the supreme court reversed on a ground not addressed in State v. Ferguson, 195 Wis. 2d 174, 536 N.W.2d 116 (Ct. App. 1995) (Ferguson I), when it concluded that § 973.06(l)(c), STATS., did not authorize assessment of laboratory expenses against the defendant because such expenses were not "fees or disbursements." Although the supreme court did not reach the issue of whether the expense related to the services of an expert witness, it did not specifically reverse our holding on that issue in Ferguson I, 195 Wis. 2d at 180, 536 N.W.2d at 118. Therefore, that holding retains precedential value. See Sweeney v. General Cas. Co., 220 Wis. 2d 183, 192, 582 N.W.2d 735, 738 (Ct. App. 1998) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). 4 Because we conclude that § 973.06(l)(c), Options: A. holdings of this court not addressed on the merits by the supreme court remain binding despite reversal on other grounds B. holding that even district court cases decided by panels of three have no precedential value C. holdings of the court of appeals not specifically reversed by the supreme court retain precedential value D. holding that directly applicable supreme court decisions require this court to overrule its prior holdings E. holding onejustice opinion has no precedential value

assistant: The best answer is C. holdings of the court of appeals not specifically reversed by the supreme court retain precedential value
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: Following a Change in Control, the Company shall advance the Executive (and her beneficiaries) any and all costs and expenses (including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other charges of counsel) incurred by the Executive (or any of her beneficiaries) in resolving any controversy, dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, any other agreement or arrangement between the Executive and the Company, the Executive’s employment with the Company, or the termination thereof and which arises out of or relates to an event that occurs within two (2) years following a Change in Control; provided , that the Executive shall reimburse the Company any advances on a net after-tax basis to cover expenses incurred by the Executive for claims brought by the Executive that are judicially determined to be frivolous or advanced in bad faith.

assistant: Change In Control
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 with counterpart signatures in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and it shall not be necessary in making proof of this Agreement to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

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: should come as no surprise to Harline, because Barker and Whyte in their brief specifically discussed Harline’s instruction to Whyte not to amend the statement of affairs and schedules, and Harline in his reply brief did not mention the evidence, let alone dispute it. This evidence demonstrates that Harline chose not to pursue his available legal remedy of amending his statement of affairs and schedules prior to his bankruptcy discharge hearing in August of 1988. “ We do not believe it would be wise judicial policy to allow one party to create legal liability in another by a voluntary exercise of the complaining party’s own personal business judgment not to seek to protect his rights in the legal forums provided him.’ ” Horn v. Moberg, 68 Wash.App. 551, 844 P.2d 452, 456 (1998) (<HOLDING>) (quoting King v. Seattle, 84 Wash.2d 239, 525 Options: A. recognizing an attorneys right to conduct the clients case with a certain degree of privacy B. holding clients independent voluntary decision to dismiss products liability suit precluded finding that attorneys alleged negligent preparation of case proximately caused clients injury C. holding that attorneys and not clients choose the arguments to present D. holding an attorney violated his duty of candor to the tribunal by changing his clients interrogatory answers without the clients knowledge E. holding that loss of substantial clients does not amount to an unconscionable injury

assistant: The best answer is B. holding clients independent voluntary decision to dismiss products liability suit precluded finding that attorneys alleged negligent preparation of case proximately caused clients injury
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 Mortgage may be executed in counterparts, all of which counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument (and original signature pages and notary pages from each counterpart may be assembled into one original document to be recorded).

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: (2008) (“There is no absolute rule by which to determine what contracts are against public policy, but each case must be determined from all the circumstances thereof, the courts declaring a contract void for such reason only where it is clearly contrary to the public interests .... ”)). In making such a determination in this case, the Court must consider competing pu 300, 319-20 (2d Cir.2009) (refusing to enforce a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement as against public policy “because to ... [enforce it] would grant [the defendant] de facto immunity from antitrust liability by removing plaintiffs’ only reasonably feasible means of recovery,” while affirming the arbitrability of antitrust claims more widely); Redel’s Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 498 F.2d 95, 98-99 (5th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>); Fox Midwest Theatres, Inc. v. Means, 221 F.2d Options: A. holding that a general release of all claims did not operate by its terms to bar prospective antitrust claims nor could it in view of public policy B. holding that despite release language discharging defendant from claims upon or by reason of any matter cause or thing whatsoever from the beginning of the world to the day of these presents release did not bar any claims accruing after the date of execution C. holding that a plaintiff may not assert claims based on statements she did not view D. holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims E. holding that release which barred all claims from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of these presents included all claims which had matured at the time of its execution

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a general release of all claims did not operate by its terms to bar prospective antitrust claims nor could it in view of public policy
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: from engaging in all those forms of discrimination identified in §§ 703 and 704 [the private-sector anti-retaliation provision], and others as well.”); Ayon v. Sampson, 547 F.2d 446, 450 (9th Cir.1976) (“We conclude that in enacting § 2000e-16, Congress intended to, and did incorporate into that section the provisions of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting harassment or retaliation for the exercise of those remedial rights established by the Act.”). The Supreme Court, moreover, reached a similar result when interpreting the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), which “was patterned directly after Title VII’s federal-sector discrimination” ban. See Gomez-Perez, 553 U.S. at 487, 491, 128 S.Ct. 1931 (internal quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). And, while it expressly declined to decide Options: A. holding age discrimination claim barred B. holding that age discrimination is not a personal injury tort C. holding employees under adeas parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship D. holding that the adeas parallel provision prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination E. holding employees under age discrimination in employment acts adea parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the adeas parallel provision prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination
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: stay (to the extent it was applicable), and the Debtor— whose Chapter 13 case had no filed claims — filed a motion to allow a late proof of claim on behalf of an unsecured creditor. All arguments and submissions concerning these matters have been considered by the court, and the issues are ripe for decision. I. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are not in dispute. The Creditor is the holder of a deed of trust on the Debtor’s principal residence, which secures a note on which the Debtor owes about $114,040. The Debtor’s payments on the note were in arrears, and the Creditor conducted a foreclosure sale on December 29, 2005. The foreclosure sale was conducted in accordance with West Virginia law, and the Debtor’s real property was sold to Gracie Mews, LLC (“Grade Mews”) for $130 997) (<HOLDING>); In re Rambo, 199 B.R. 747, 751 Options: A. holding that the debtors were entitled to cure the mortgage arrearage through their chapter 13 plan because the creditors failure to record the sale deed prior to the bankruptcy filing rendered the sale incomplete under state law B. holding that the debtor had the right to cure the default because the foreclosure sale was not complete under state law until it was confirmed by a court C. recognizing the language of 1322c1 as a minimum floor in cutting off the debtors right to cure and permitting the debtor to cure until the deed was delivered to the successful bidder which would complete the sale under new jersey law D. holding that the debtors could cure their arrearage until the expiration of the 10day upset bid period which would render the foreclosure sale complete under north carolina law E. holding that the debtors could cure the default until the delivery of a sheriffs deed to the successful purchaser rendering the sale complete under new jersey state law

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the debtors could cure the default until the delivery of a sheriffs deed to the successful purchaser rendering the sale complete under new jersey state law
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: when you book a reservation facilitated by instant booking , we will collect your payment information and transmit it to the supplier to complete the transaction , as described in our 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties hereto hereby agree that all questions concerning the construction, validity and interpretation of this TRA and the performance of the obligations imposed by this TRA shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of Delaware without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision or rule, notwithstanding that public policy in Delaware or any other forum jurisdiction might indicate that the laws of that or any other jurisdiction should otherwise apply based on contacts with such state or otherwise.

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: Cash Collateral (or the appropriate portion thereof) provided to reduce Fronting Exposure or other obligations shall be released promptly following (i) the elimination of the applicable Fronting Exposure or other obligations giving rise thereto (including by the termination of Defaulting Lender status of the applicable Revolving Lender (or, as appropriate, its assignee following compliance with Section 11.07(b) )) or (ii) the Administrative Agent’s good faith determination that there exists excess Cash Collateral; provided , however , (x) that Cash Collateral furnished by or on behalf of a Credit Party shall not be released during the continuance of a Default or Event of Default (and following application as provided in this Section 2.14 may be otherwise applied in accordance with Section 8.03 ), and (y) the Person providing Cash Collateral and the L/C Issuer or Swing Line Lender, as applicable, may agree that Cash Collateral shall not be released but instead held to support future anticipated Fronting Exposure or other obligations.

assistant: Releases
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 of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original, and it shall not be necessary in making proof of this Agreement to produce or account for more than one such counterpart. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Agreement by facsimile or other electronic means shall be effective as an original.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice or report required or permitted to be given or made under this Agreement by one Party to the other will be in writing and will be deemed to have been delivered (a) upon personal delivery, (b) on the second Business Day (at the place of delivery) next following deposit with a reputable, internationally recognized overnight courier that maintains records of delivery and (c) in the case of notices provided by telecopy (which notice will be followed immediately by an additional notice pursuant to clause (a) or (b) above if the notice is of a default under this Agreement), upon completion of transmission, with transmission confirmed, to the addressee’s facsimile machine, as follows (or at such other addresses or facsimile numbers as may have been furnished in writing by a Party to the other as provided in this Section 14.3 ( Notices )). This Section 14.3 ( Notices ) is not intended to govern the day-to-day business communications necessary between the Parties in performing their obligations under the terms of this Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, together with the Plan, supersede any and all other prior understandings and agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matter in this Agreement and constitute the only agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter in this Agreement. All prior negotiations and agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter in this Agreement are merged into this Agreement. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party or by anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied in this Agreement or the Plan and that any agreement, statement or promise that is not contained in this Agreement or the Plan shall not be valid or binding or of any force or effect. Except for the specific representations expressly made by the Company in this Agreement, the Participant specifically disclaims that the Participant is relying upon or has relied upon any communications, promises, statements, inducements, or representation(s) that may have been made, oral or written, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. The parties represent that they are relying solely and only on their own judgment in entering into this Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Capitalized terms used in this Amendment, to the extent not otherwise defined herein, shall have the same meanings as in the Credit Agreement as amended hereby, and all references to "Sections," "clauses," "Articles," "Exhibits," and "Schedules" are references to the Credit Agreement's sections, clauses, articles, exhibits and schedules.

assistant: Definitions
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 Exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire agreement between Licensee and Licensor in connection with the subject matter hereof and supersedes all documents and correspondence entered into prior to the date 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the consummation by the Company of the transactions contemplated hereby do not (i) result in a violation of the Company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, (ii) conflict with, or constitute a default under any agreement, indenture or instrument to which the Company is a party or (iii) conflict with any law statute, rule or regulation to which the Company is subject or any agreement, order, judgment or decree to which the Company is subject. Other than any federal, state or foreign securities filings which may be required to be made by the Company subsequent to the Closing, and any registration statement which may be filed pursuant thereto, the Company is not required under federal, state or local law, rule or regulation to obtain any consent, authorization or order of, or make any filing or registration with, any court or governmental agency or self-regulatory entity in order for it to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement or issue the Units, the Rights, the Right Shares, the Warrants, or the Unit Shares, or Warrant Shares in accordance with the terms hereof.

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: related to cases under Title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); Bessette, 240 B.R. at 152-53. Federal district courts have original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Jurisdiction is shared with the bankruptcy court, an arm of the district court, although the bankruptcy court can only hear cases that derive from the federal district court’s bankruptcy jurisdiction. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 157. Although cases are often referred to the bankruptcy court for resolution, the district court may withdraw its reference to the bankruptcy court and hear the case itself. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Because the complain ankruptcy estate or affect the size of the estate, then the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction. See, e.g., Feld v. Zale Corp., 62 F.3d 746, 756-59 (5th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>); Community Bank of Homestead v. Boone, 52 F.3d Options: A. holding that bankruptcy court could not enjoin third party tort claims that would not affect estate B. holding that a bankruptcy court does not have exclusive jurisdiction over third party claims against nondebtor parties as such claims are not cases under title 11 C. holding that if dispute involves funds that are not property of estate it cannot be maintained in the bankruptcy court unless it is related to the bankruptcy proceeding which means it is likely to affect the debtors estate D. holding that thirdparty nondebtor claims must directly affect the res of the bankruptcy estate E. holding that bankruptcy court may enjoin federal administrative proceedings when they threaten the debtors estate

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that bankruptcy court could not enjoin third party tort claims that would not affect estate
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 represents and warrants to the other Party that it has taken all requisite governmental, corporate, partnership or limited liability company action (as applicable) to approve the execution, delivery and performance by such Party of this Agreement.

assistant: Approvals
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: whom the estoppel is sought, and consequently changed its position to its prejudice. Id.” 758 So.2d at 555. Joe Jr. argues that the holding in Jin-right is limited to the situation in which a petitioner in bankruptcy omits a potential claim in his schedule of assets and then later sues on that claim. We do not read Jinright so narrowly, however, and we can find no indication that our supreme court, in outlining the elements that must be proved to establish judicial estoppel, confined its statements to the bankruptcy context. We hold that the doctrine of judicial estoppel is inapplicable here for at least two reasons. First, Robert and Joe Jr., the parties asserting the estoppel, were not parties to the Florida divorce action. Cf. Singley v. Bentley, 782 So.2d 799 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). Second, the parties claiming the estoppel did Options: A. holding that a farmer was not estopped to recover against a harvester for underpayment on 27000 bushels of sweet potatoes by the farmers claim in filing for federal cropdisaster benefits that his crop had produced only 15000 bushels the harvester was not a party to the farmers application for benefits B. holding that a claimants failure to list an impairment either in her application for disability benefits or through her testimony disposes of the claim because the alj was under no obligation to investigate a claim not presented at the time of the application for benefits and not offered at the hearing as a basis for disability C. holding that the mere application for other benefits is not fault D. holding that disability benefits are not retirementtype benefits E. holding that the consideration of the fact that claimant collected unemployment benefits while he was allegedly disabled was not a ground for reversal where there was other medical and vocational evidence supporting denial of benefits and claimants receipt of unemployment benefits was not decisive factor in denial of benefits

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a farmer was not estopped to recover against a harvester for underpayment on 27000 bushels of sweet potatoes by the farmers claim in filing for federal cropdisaster benefits that his crop had produced only 15000 bushels the harvester was not a party to the farmers application for benefits
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and all documents and instruments referred to herein (i) constitute the entire agreement and supersede all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof, and (ii) are not intended to confer upon any person other than the Parties hereto any rights or remedies hereunder. Each Party hereto agrees that, except for the representations and warranties contained in this Agreement, neither Party makes any other representations or warranties, and each hereby disclaims any other representations and warranties made by itself or any of his agents, financial and legal advisors or other representatives, with respect to the execution and delivery of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby, notwithstanding the delivery or disclosure of any documentation or other information with respect to any one or more of the foregoing.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed simul-taneously in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The Parties agree that facsimile signatures of this Agreement shall be deemed a valid and binding execution of this Agreement.

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: of 10 years of imprisonment when it later offered to introduce evidence that would subject Taylor to a sentence of more than 10 years. 77 F.3d at 369-71. In contrast with Boatner and Taylor, the United States did not advocate a position contrary to its obligations to Hallock. The United States agreed not to recommend an enhancement for a pattern of sexual activity, and it complied with that agreement. Nothing in that agreement limited the amount or type of information that the United States could disclose about Hallock for purposes of sentencing. And the United States was entitled under the plea agreement to “inform the [District] Court and the probation office of all facts pertinent to the sentencing process.” See United States v. Thomas, 487 F.3d 1358, 1360-61 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The United States abided by its agreement. B. Options: A. holding the government was required by law to correct a defendants misrepresentations at a sentencing hearing and doing so did not violate the plea agreement B. holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court C. holding that the district court erred when it used rule 36 to amend the defendants sentence to include an order of forfeiture that had been agreed to in the plea agreement but which the court failed to make a part of its judgment at sentencing D. holding that an argument for the district court to give serious consideration of the imposition of consecutive penalties did not violate a plea agreement that forbade the government from recommending a specific sentence but allowed it to give advice about sentencing considerations E. holding that the district court did not give the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to be heard where it failed to conduct an in limine hearing and denied oral argument on the evidentiary issues

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an argument for the district court to give serious consideration of the imposition of consecutive penalties did not violate a plea agreement that forbade the government from recommending a specific sentence but allowed it to give advice about sentencing considerations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The debtors own three motor vehicles: a 1998 Mercury Marquis, a 2004 Volkswagen Passat, and a 1982 Mercedes 380SL. The Marquis and the Mercedes are each owned free and clear. The Passat is subject to a lien in favor of Capital One Auto Financing. On their means test form, the debtors claimed the full $489 ownership expense allowance for the Mercury Marquis. They claimed the same allowance for the Passat, but — as required by the means test form — subtracted out the $399 monthly payment to Capital One, for a net ownership expense allowance of $90. Although some courts have held that an ownership expense allowance may not be taken on a vehicle that the debtor owns free and clear, the majority and better-reasoned view, the court believes, is that such a deduction is authorized 8) (<HOLDING>). While there are no reported decisions within Options: A. holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case B. holding that for purpose of the means test debtor can deduct mortgage payment even though debtor will abandon property C. holding that there is no statutory authority in chapter 13 which grants a chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustees avoidance power D. holding that projected disposable income for an abovemedian income debtor would not include a deduction for contractual payments on undersecured debt that the debtor would not actually be required to pay because the plan bifurcated the claim or surrendered the collateral E. holding that abovemedian income chapter 13 debtor entitled to deduct payments for 2 atvs even though she intended to surrender them

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that abovemedian income chapter 13 debtor entitled to deduct payments for 2 atvs even though she intended to surrender them
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the .active pursuit requirement is especially important as to not eviscerate the exclusionary rule); United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 320 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that the court “has never applied the inevitable discovery exception so as to excuse the failure to obtain a search warrant where the police had probable cause but simply did not attempt to obtain a search warrant,” because to hold otherwise “would completely obviate the warrant requirement”) (citing United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271, 1280 n. 7 (9th Cir.1986)); United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 746 (1st Cir.1986) (recognizing that active pursuit may be necessary in certain situations to satisfy the test of inevitability and independence); United States v. Cherry, 759 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). However, even the federal courts that would Options: A. holding that the prosecution must establish a reasonable probability that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means that the leads making the discovery inevitable were possessed by the police prior to the misconduct and that the police were actively pursuing the alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct B. holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial C. holding that the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred D. holding that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine as that doctrine requires the state to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the police ultimately would have discovered the evidence independently of the improper police conduct by means of normal investigative measures that inevitably would have been set in motion as a matter of routine police procedure quoting craig v state 510 so2d 857 863 fla1987 E. holding that upon remand if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable the trial court must review that new evidence as well as brady claims that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the prosecution must establish a reasonable probability that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means that the leads making the discovery inevitable were possessed by the police prior to the misconduct and that the police were actively pursuing the alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct
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 Persons bound by this obligation, whether primarily or secondarily liable as principals, sureties, guarantors, endorsers or otherwise, hereby waive the benefits of all provisions of law for stay or delay or execution or sale of property or other satisfaction of judgment against any of them on account of liability hereon until judgment is obtained, executed and issued against any of them and in turn satisfied, and its right, if any, to require the Holder to hold as security for this Note any collateral deposited by any of said persons as security. Demand, presentment, protest, notice of protest, and notice of dishonor are hereby waived by all parties bound hereon.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall reimburse Employee, upon presentation of the Company’s standard expense report accompanied by appropriate vouchers and other suitable documentation, for all reasonable and appropriate expenses incurred by Employee for business-related purposes, including business-related travel, incurred by Employee on behalf of the Company, provided such expenditure is consistent with Company policy. Additionally, during the Term, the Company shall provide Employee with the following additional benefits, as such benefits may change from time to time: (i) group health care and insurance benefits as generally made available to the Company’s senior management and (ii) such other benefits (including insurance related benefits, holiday, sick leave, personal days, etc.) obtained by the Company or made generally available to the Company’s senior management. The Company may evaluate further insurance coverages for the Employee, including accidental death and dismemberment insurance and “key man” life insurance. In the event the Company wishes to obtain such additional insurance on the Employee, Employee agrees to cooperate with the Company in completing any applications necessary to obtain such insurance and promptly submit to such physical examinations and furnish such information as any proposed insurance carrier may request.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 696, n. 6, 82 S.Ct. 1404, 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962). Moreover, “[i]f the adverse party does not [file an opposition], summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Nevertheless, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear that failure to timely oppose a motion for summary judgment, does not, in itself, justify entry of summary judgment against the party; therefore, a District Court is “obliged to consider the motion on the merits, in light of the record as constituted, in order to determine whether judgment would be legally appropriate.” See Kelly v. United States, 924 F.2d 355, 358 (1st Cir.1991); see also Lopez v. Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico, 938 F.2d 1510, 1517 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In the case of failure to oppose a motion for Options: A. holding that before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law B. recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case C. holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment D. holding that in a traditional motion for summary judgment the burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a fact issue after the movant has facially established its right to judgment as a matter of law E. holding that summary judgment motion itself must expressly present reasons entitling movant to summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: held that “[e]ach patent asserted raises an independent and distinct cause of action.” Id. at 1555-56. Plaintiffs argument appears to be a red herring. While the Court understands that, for purposes of res judi-cata, each patent is distinct, there is undoubtedly no question here as to whether the '505 and '418 patents are independent of the four patents involved in the 2006 Maryland action. Thus, the issue here is not one of res judicata; rather, it is whether StemCells subjected itself to the jurisdiction of this Court when it filed a prior suit against Neuralstem with respect to related patents, involving the same parties, and arising out of the same transaction or same nucleus of operative facts. See Gen. Contracting & Trading Co. v. Interpole, Inc., 940.F.2d 20, 25 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The Court is satisfied that there exists Options: A. holding that a defendant that invokes the jurisdiction of a court as a plaintiff waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim for which it invoked the courts jurisdiction B. holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property C. holding that a defendant who elected to avail itself of the benefit of a state courts jurisdiction by filing a prior suit against the same party waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim and arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts for which it originally invoked the courts jurisdiction D. holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction E. holding that unlike subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction may be waived

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a defendant that invokes the jurisdiction of a court as a plaintiff waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim for which it invoked the courts 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: well below the Guidelines range. See Sentencing Hr’g Tr. 27-34. Accordingly, and contrary to his contention on appeal, Simpson did have an opportunity at his sentencing hearing to present argument consistent with the law as later set forth in Booker. It is true that the district court did not address the two specific mitigating circumstances Simpson cites in his appellate briefs. That was not, however, because the court barred their consideration. Rather, it was because Simpson failed to suggest them. In the closest analogy under the mandatory Guidelines regime, this Circuit initially ruled that it could not discern error at all in a court’s failure to address unrequested grounds for a discretionary sentencing departure. See United States v. Leandre, 132 F.3d 796, 808 (D.C.Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Pinnick, 47 F.3d Options: A. holding that in the absence of a government crossappeal an appellate court may not sua sponte correct a district court error if the correction would be to the defendants detriment B. holding that the district court could consider increased sentence severity resulting from deportable alien status C. holding that the district court cannot remand sua sponte for defects in removal procedure D. holding that defendants status as a deportable alien could be considered by the district court at sentencing E. holding that the district court cannot be faulted for failing sua sponte to also address whether the defendants deportable status would affect the severity of his sentence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court cannot be faulted for failing sua sponte to also address whether the defendants deportable status would affect the severity of his sentence