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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we may give notice to you at the e-mail address you provide to us when you register , or in any of the ways specified in section 13.7 above .

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: 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (rejecting Eighth Amendment challenge to prison term of twenty-five-years to life under California’s “three strikes law” for a recidivist who was convicted of stealing golf clubs worth $1,200). While it was previously unclear to lower courts whether the proportionality requirements of the Eight portionality review is one of several respects in which we have held that ‘death is different,’ and have imposed protections that the Constitution nowhere else provides.”) (citations omitted). For non-capital cases, it is only an “extraordinary case” where “the gross disproportionality principle reserves a constitutional violation.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 68, 77, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); see also Solem, 463 U.S. at 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001 (<HOLDING>); Weems, 217 U.S. at 349, 30 S.Ct. 544 Options: A. holding that it was a violation of the eighth amendment to sentence a defendant to life for a seventh nonviolent felony of writing a bad check for 10000 B. holding unconstitutional a sentence of life imprisonment for passing a bad check by a convicted felon C. holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy D. holding the defendant was a convicted felon within the purview of the federal statute prohibiting the receiving and possession of firearms by a convicted felon where the defendants prior conviction was based on an idaho state probated sentence E. holding that sentence was erroneous but not void where sentence of life imprisonment without parole was imposed for first degree murder under unconstitutional penalty statute

assistant: The best answer is B. holding unconstitutional a sentence of life imprisonment for passing a bad check by a convicted felon
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: our inquiry, however. Rule 17(a) requires the district court to grant leave to substitute or join the real party in interest prior to dismissing an action for failure to name the real party in interest: No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification, joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest. Fed.R.CivJP. 17(a). If Mrs. Esposito were substituted under this rule, it would solve each of the problems identified above. See, e.g., Goodman, 298 F.3d at 1054 (<HOLDING>). Rule 17(a) provides that the substitution Options: A. holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute B. holding ftca jurisdictional requirements satisfied in wrongful death action by substituting husband in his individual capacity who had filed timely administrative claim for husband in his capacity as personal representative of decedents estate who had not filed claim and could not bring wrongful death action under state law C. recognizing cause of action for wrongful death D. holding that personal representative may amend personal injury suit to state wrongful death claim following plaintiffs death E. holding plaintiff stated claim in his individual capacity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding ftca jurisdictional requirements satisfied in wrongful death action by substituting husband in his individual capacity who had filed timely administrative claim for husband in his capacity as personal representative of decedents estate who had not filed claim and could not bring wrongful death action under state law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any delay in enforcing a party’s rights under this Agreement, or any waiver as to a particular default or other matter, will not constitute a waiver of such party’s rights to the future enforcement of its rights under this Agreement, except with respect to an express written waiver relating to a particular matter for a particular period of time signed by Consultant and an authorized representative of the waiving party, as applicable.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for asking Robi-nette to exit his vehicle was to question him about possible contraband in his vehicle, the Court found the officer’s subjective intentions irrelevant. See id. (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1774, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (finding that a police officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant so long as there is objective justification for the police officer’s actions)). The Court found that the officer was clearly justified in detaining Robinette for speeding, based on his observations, and additionally justified in asking Robinette to step out of the car, “subjective thoughts notwithstanding.” Robinette II, 519 U.S. at 38, 117 S.Ct. at 421 (citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. 330, 333 n. 6, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977)(<HOLDING>)). The majority then turned to the question of Options: A. holding that once a vehicle has been lawfully stopped an officer may order the driver out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendment B. holding once a driver has been lawfully detained the police may order the driver to exit the vehicle even in the absence of unusual or suspicious behavior without violating the fourth amendments prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures the court stated we think it too plain for argument that the states proffered justificationthe safety of the officeris both legitimate and weighty and it specifically recognized the inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile C. holding that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendments proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures D. holding that the fourth amendment does not require lawenforcement officers to have a reason for ordering a driver who has been lawfully stopped to get out of the vehicle E. holding that officer may order driver out of vehicle once lawfully detained for traffic violation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendments proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures
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 governed by the laws of the State of Florida without regard to choice of law consideration. Borrower hereby irrevocably consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Florida and of any federal court located in such State in connection with any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to the Note or this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Howard, 941 S.W.2d at 117 (quoting Landry v. State, 706 S.W.2d 105, 112 (Tex. Crim.App.1985)). A finding of inherent prejudice is reserved for extreme situations. Id. This determination is to be made on a case-by-case basis. Landry, 706 S.W.2d at 112. In none of the cases which discuss potential effects that external influences may have on a jury do the courts appear to enumerate which factors might be “impermissible,” or what degree of risk is “unacceptable.” See, e.g., Howard, 941 S.W.2d at 117; Landry, 706 S.W.2d at 112. In general, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial if the trial court has instructed the jury to disregard the assault. See Williams v. State, 651 S.W.2d 820, 822 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] ur W. 852, 854 (1923) (<HOLDING>). “We will not lightly assume the jury Options: A. holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible in part because defense counsel implied during opening statement that witness had fabricated her testimony B. holding no injury to guse shown by statement from audience member that contradicted guses testimony because statement was irrelevant to defense presented C. holding no injury to ashley shown by statement to widow of murder victim that was not in evidence because trial court gave sua sponte instruction to jury to disregard statement and statement did not contradict ashleys testimony D. holding that anonymous statement was admissible as a statement by a partys agent under rule 801d2d and noting that a district court should be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the person who is alleged to have made the damaging statement is in fact a party or an agent of that party E. holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent

assistant: The best answer is B. holding no injury to guse shown by statement from audience member that contradicted guses testimony because statement was irrelevant to defense presented
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: this appeal had apparently gone unanswered. The district court, construing Ciempa’s request as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, denied relief, concluding the “fact that [Ciempa’s] request for an administrative appeal out of time was returned unanswered does not ... entitle [him] to relief from the Judgment entered in this action on January 12, 2009, 2009 WL 87787. [Ciempa] had not exhausted administrative remedies when he commenced this action.” R., Doc. 16 at 4. Ciempa now appeals, raising the same claims as he did below. II. Analysis A state prisoner may appeal from the denial of federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only if the district court or this court first issues a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Before granting a COA, we must conclude that Options: A. holding that state prisoners must obtain a coa to appeal denials of 28 usc 2241 petitions B. holding state prisoners proceeding under 2241 must be granted a coa before their claims can be considered on the merits C. holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to 2241 petitions D. holding that the oneyear statute of limitations set out in 28 usc 2244d applies to 2241 petitions E. holding 2253clas coa requirement applies to state prisoners proceeding under 2241 when the petition relates to any of the incidents and circumstances of any detention pursuant to state court process

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that state prisoners must obtain a coa to appeal denials of 28 usc 2241 petitions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Court acknowledged that a person possesses a privacy interest in the contents of personal luggage, it held that a canine sniff is "an investigative procedure that is so limited in both the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed by the procedure" that it does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Id. The Court specifically noted that a canine sniff is much less intrusive than a typical search because it does not require opening the luggage to reveal information about personal non-contraband items, but rather only discloses the presence or absence of an illegal substance. Id. In a subsequent case, the United States Supreme Court observed that lawmakers have enacted laws against the private possession of cocaine, and th 01) (<HOLDING>); State v. Kalie, 699 So.2d 879, 881 (La.1997) Options: A. holding that a canine sniff of an automobile need not be justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of drug activity B. holding a canine sniff on a legitimately detained automobile is not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment C. holding that an officer does not need reasonable articulable suspicion of drugrelated criminal activity prior to subjecting defendants car to a dog sniff subsequent to a lawful traffic stop D. holding that the airspace around the car is not a protected area and police do not need a reasonable suspicion of drugrelated activity prior to subjecting an otherwise lawfully detained vehicle to a canine sniff E. holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the airspace around the car is not a protected area and police do not need a reasonable suspicion of drugrelated activity prior to subjecting an otherwise lawfully detained vehicle to a canine sniff
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: It shall be the duty of the Committee to conduct the general administration of the Plan in accordance with its provisions. The Committee shall have the power to interpret the Plan and the Award Agreements, and to adopt such rules for the administration, interpretation and application of the Plan as are consistent therewith, to interpret, amend or revoke any such rules, to delegate authority in accordance with Section 10.5 and to amend any Award Agreement provided that the rights or obligations of the Participant of the Award that is the subject of any such Award Agreement are not affected adversely. Any such grant or award under the Plan need not be the same with respect to each Participant. Any such interpretations and rules with respect to Incentive Stock Options shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 422 of the Code. In its discretion, the Board may at any time and from time to time exercise any and all rights and duties of the Committee under the Plan except with respect to matters which under Rule 16b-3 or Section 162(m) of the Code are required to be determined in the discretion of the Committee. The Committee may, in its sole discretion, adopt special guidelines and provisions for persons who are residing in or employed in, or subject to, the taxes of, any domestic or foreign jurisdictions to comply with applicable tax and securities laws of such domestic or foreign jurisdictions.

assistant: Duties
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: entered, that upon trial the prosecution would have the burden of proving each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the plea is an admission of all those elements; (B) there is a factual basis for the plea. ...; (5) the defendant knows the minimum and maximum sentence, and if applicable, the mini-reum mandatory nature of the minimum sentence, that may be imposed for each offense to which a plea is entered. Utah R.Crim. P. 11(e)(2), (4)-(5). 3 . Because our decision that the trial court failed to strictly comply with rule 11 by accepting Mora's guilty plea without informing him that the State had the burden to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is dispositive, we need not address Mora's other arguments. See, e.g., State v. Heaton, 958 P.2d 911, 919 (Utah 1998) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Prior to the creation of the strict Options: A. holding that where one argument is dispositive of the appeal we need not address the defendants other arguments B. holding that appellate courts need not address remaining issues when the resolution of a prior issue is dispositive C. holding that this court need not address the merits of an argument raised for the first time on appeal D. holding that where a party does not adequately brief an argument we need not address it on appeal E. holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where one argument is dispositive of the appeal we need not address the defendants other arguments
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: Consultant shall deliver to the Company no later than the 10 th day of each month an invoice for the costs and expenses incurred during the preceding month that are reimbursable under Section 2 and outlining the services performed and reimbursable costs and expenses incurred. Payment for each invoice shall be made by the Company within 30 days of its receipt. Such payment of reimbursable costs and expenses to Consultant will represent the full and final payment for such services rendered by Consultant to the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each employee who was a participant in the Science Kit Plan on September 30, 1998, became a Participant in this Plan as of October 1, 1998, provided that on such date he or she was an Eligible Employee. Each other employee who had service with Science Kit, Central, or any affiliate thereof prior to October 1, 1998, and who had completed at least one year of Credited Service for eligibility purposes (after application of paragraph (b)(i) below) on or before October 1, 1998, became a Participant in this Plan as of October 1, 1998, provided that on such date he or she was an Eligible Employee.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: must be determined from the face of the plaintiffs complaint. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9-11, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2846-47, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). The Supreme Court enunciated the modem test in Franchise Tax Board, namely that “lower federal courts [have] jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Id. at 27-28, 103 S.Ct. at 2856. The Supreme Court has narrowly construed the test to restrict removal. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986) (<HOLDING>). In the consolidated action of Burke, supra, Options: A. recognizing that every theory of relief must raise federal issue for claim to arise under federal law B. holding that merely alluding to federal law does not raise a federal question C. holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law D. holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court E. holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal 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: This Agreement, its interpretation, performance and enforcement, and the rights and remedies of the parties hereto, shall be governed and construed by the laws of the State of Nevada applicable to contracts to be performed wholly within Nevada, without regard to principles of conflicts of laws and without the aid of any canon, custom or rule of law requiring construction against the drafter.

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: This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which counterparts, taken together, shall constitute but 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: taken directly by her. See Boyd, 47 F.3d at 968 (supervisor may not incur liability on theory of respondeat superior; “supervisor must know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye” to it (internal quotation and citation omitted)). Next, Cooper’s allegations against corrections officers N. Earn, Mark Major, William Hughes, and M. Hunter— that Earn shut off his water for five days and the others threatened his safety, all because he used the prison grievance system — are sufficient to state a retaliation claim. See Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir.1990) (otherwise proper acts are actionable under § 1983 if taken in retaliation for exercise of constitutionally protected right); Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Hudspeth v. Figgins, 584 F.2d 1345, 1348 (4th Options: A. recognizing first amendment petition right where inmate alleged retaliation for filing grievances B. recognizing right to petition for redress of grievances under established prison grievance system C. holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials D. holding that filing of a disciplinary charge becomes actionable if done in retaliation for the inmates filing of a grievance and stating that such conduct strikes at the heart of an inmates constitutional right to seek redress of grievances E. recognizing that prisoners undoubtedly exercise first amendment petition right when filing grievances and stating that prison officials may not retaliate against prisoners for filing grievances

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing right to petition for redress of grievances under established prison grievance system
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: signed. 84. The Court finds that Durham’s § 113(f)(1) contribution claim was timely filed and is not barred by CERCLA’s statute of limitations. B. Durham’s State-Law Claims 85. Defendants have also asserted as an affirmative defense that Durham’s state-law claims under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22a-16 and § 22a-452 are barred by the applicable state statute of limitations. Defendants have raised three possible statute of limitations that could apply to Durham’s state-law claims: (i) Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-577, the three-year statute of limitations applicable to tort actions; (ii) Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584, the two-year statute of limitations applicable to injuries to real or personal property caused by negligence or reckless or wanton misconduct; and (iii) Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52 441 (D.Conn.1994) (<HOLDING>)- 87. This Court has previously rejected the Options: A. holding that plaintiffs claims under 22a452 were barred by the statute of limitations regardless of whether 52577c 52582 or 52577 was applied B. holding that the plaintiffs claims under 22a452 were barred by the statute of limitations but declining to decide which statute to apply C. holding that section 1 claims of direct purchasers of buspirone products were not barred by the statute of limitations D. holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations E. holding that parents were not entitled to use infancy tolling provisions and that the statute of limitations barred their claims

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plaintiffs claims under 22a452 were barred by the statute of limitations but declining to decide which statute to apply
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: as standardized, pre-printed forms that each plaintiff had to sign, and, from a negotiating standpoint, Amoco clearly had greater bargaining power than plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the court does not find that the contracts are so “one-sided” or unfair as to render either the integration clauses or the contracts themselves unenforceable. Even construing the standardized contracts strictly against Amoco and in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there is nothing that could reasonably be considered shockingly unfair or offensive about the wording of the contracts or the inclusion of the integration clauses therein. Standardized contracts with integration clauses have been a common part of plaintiffs’ and Amoco’s franchise relationship. See Adams, 13 Kan.App.2d at 497, 774 P.2d 355 (<HOLDING>). In addition, this case does not involve the Options: A. holding that hearing officers noting the parties agreement did not constitute a change in the parties legal relationship B. holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear C. holding that nolostprofits clause in parties agreement was not unconscionable as a matter of law in part because similar clause had been in the agreement between the parties for years D. holding that even if the parties had formed a contract under 2207l the arbitration clause materially altered the contract and therefore did not become part of the parties agreement E. holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that nolostprofits clause in parties agreement was not unconscionable as a matter of law in part because similar clause had been in the agreement between the parties for years
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: As of the date hereof, the authorized common stock of the Company consists of 500,000,000 authorized shares of Common Stock, $0.001par value per share, of which 65,908,195 shares are issued and outstanding; and 289,846 shares are reserved for issuance upon conversion of the Note. All of such outstanding shares of capital stock are, or upon issuance will be, duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable ..

assistant: Capitalization
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: helpful if the district court instituted procedures to retain copies of the unfiled complaints as part of the miscellaneous file in which the injunction is imposed. 11 . Initially, this court granted the defendants' motion for summary affirmance in part. See Powell v. Department of Justice, No. 86-5680 (D.C.Cir. April 20, 1988) (unpublished order) (affirming the dismissal of Powell’s constitutional claims). More recently, however, we issued an order denying the remainder of the Bureau of Prisons’ motion for summary affirmance. In addition, we sua sponte reversed the district court’s judgment as it related to Powell’s Privacy Act claims and remanded the case for further consideration. See Powell v. Department of Justice, No. 86-5680, Order at 1 (D.C.Cir. June 20, 1988) (to be published) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). 12 . One of Powell’s Options: A. holding that court may refuse leave to amend because of undue delay B. holding that although district courts have discretion to deny leave to amend they may only do so for a substantial reason C. holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made D. holding a person at anothers residence solely for the purpose of engaging in drug related activity has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence E. holding that there was no legitimate reason for the bureau of prisons bop to refuse to amend a record already made public with regard only to powells correct residence address

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that there was no legitimate reason for the bureau of prisons bop to refuse to amend a record already made public with regard only to powells correct residence address
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 $25,000, and her retirement became effective on January 3, 2014, as she requested. See id. at 1, 4. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs voluntary retirement precludes a reinstatement remedy. See Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot., ECF No. [51-2], at 32-33. Plaintiff has offered no response to Defendant’s argument on this issue. See Def.’s Reply, ECF No. [58], at 1-2. Plaintiff also has not asserted a “constructive discharge” claim or otherwise contended that her retirement was not voluntary. Upon review of Defendant’s arguments, the record as a whole, and the applicable legal authorities, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs voluntary retirement precludes her from her requested remedy of reinstatement. See, e.g., Kalinoski v. Gutierrez, 435 F.Supp.2d 55, 72-73 (D.D.C.2006) (<HOLDING>);, see also id. (citing cases). Accordingly, Options: A. holding that a voluntary resignation cuts off a plaintiffs eligibility to recover under title vii beyond the date of the resignation B. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii C. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original D. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii E. holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a voluntary resignation cuts off a plaintiffs eligibility to recover under title vii beyond the date of the resignation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a parolee does not enjoy “the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only [] the conditional liberty properly dependant on observance of special parole restrictions.” Id. at 365, 118 S.Ct. 2014 (quotation omitted); accord Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (“[R]evocation[ ] is not a stage of a criminal prosecution, [even if it] does result in a loss of liberty.”); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (recognizing that a parolee does not have the full panoply of constitutional rights to which a criminal defendant is entitled). Relying on these cases, we have reached the same- conclusion in the supervised-release context. See United States v. Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The panel’s decision is thüs- contrary to Options: A. holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release B. holding that 3605 authorizes a transferee court to revoke a term of a defendants supervised release for violations committed prior to the transfer of jurisdiction C. holding that the fourth amendment does not require a warrant based on an oath or affirmation to revoke an individual on supervised release D. holding that constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants through the sixth amendment apply in nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions just as they do in other criminal prosecutions E. holding that proceedings to revoke supervised release need not comply with the procedural protections constitutionally guaranteed for criminal prosecutions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that proceedings to revoke supervised release need not comply with the procedural protections constitutionally guaranteed for criminal prosecutions
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 letter agreements do not constitute enforceable contracts as they are unenforceable for want of mutuality. As set forth above, Connecticut choice of law principles direct that the law of Singapore govern the contract claims. Under Singapore law, mutuality of obligation is necessary for a contract to be enforceable. It is generally accepted in the common law of this country that agreements that impose no specific purchase obligation on a distributor cannot obligate a manufacturer to sell to the distributor. Billings Cottonseed, Inc. v. Albany Oil Mill, Inc., 178 Ga.App. 825, 328 S.E.2d 426, 430 (1985). In such cases, mutuality of obligation is lacking, and the agreement is therefore unenforceable. Kraftco Corporation v. Kolbus, 1 Ill.App.3d 635, 274 N.E.2d 153, 156 (1971) (<HOLDING>). “An agreement that does not expressly or Options: A. holding a distributionlicense agreement unenforceable for lack of mutuality where the distributors only obligation was to maintain a record of the sales and remit royalties thereon but was not obligated to sell any of the product B. holding that an alleged oral agreement between a manufacturer and a distributor lacked mutuality of obligation and was enforceable where the distributor had no obligation to sell any specific quantity and no obligation to meet any quotas C. recognizing that a divorce decree obligation to hold an exspouse harmless from a debt creates an obligation between the debtor and the exspouse separate from any obligation the debtor may owe to the creditor D. holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify E. holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an alleged oral agreement between a manufacturer and a distributor lacked mutuality of obligation and was enforceable where the distributor had no obligation to sell any specific quantity and no obligation to meet any quotas
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for failures that could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, Parent, the Borrower and each Restricted Subsidiary (a) have timely filed or caused to be filed all Tax returns and reports required to have been filed and (b) have paid or caused to be paid all Taxes levied or imposed on it or its properties, income or assets (whether or not shown on a Tax return) including in their capacity as tax withholding agents, except any Taxes that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings; provided that Parent, the Borrower or such Subsidiary, as the case may be, has set aside on its books adequate reserves therefor in accordance with GAAP.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and, Whitney claims, Whitney has been engaged in “settlement discussions” with plaintiffs for the seven months between that time and July 2007, when Whitney sought the Court’s permission to file the instant motion. See Whitney Mem. at 12; Waldner Deck Ex. R (email from Whitney’s counsel to plaintiffs dated 12/21/06); Declaration of Thomas Attonito dated July 18, 2007, ¶ 8 (“Whitney has not filed the instant application to vacate the default until now since I was in negotiations with the Funds in an attempt to settle this matter.”). However, these allegations, even if true, make Whitney’s delay in moving to vacate the default judgment less reasonable, not more so, as they show a conscious decision to delay. See Dow Chem. Pac. Ltd. v. Rascator Mar. S.A., 782 F.2d 329, 336 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). In sum, Whitney has offered nothing that Options: A. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that motion to set aside default made at least seven months after defendant learned of entry of default was not made within a reasonable time B. holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment C. holding that in considering the appellants opposition to the motion for a default judgment it is proper to apply the rule 55c standard for setting aside the entry of a default D. holding that superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding that rule 60b6 motion was made within a reasonable time E. holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that motion to set aside default made at least seven months after defendant learned of entry of default was not made within a reasonable time
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 have the authority and the right to deduct, withhold or require a Participant or Beneficiary to remit to the Company an amount sufficient to satisfy federal, state, local and foreign taxes (including without limitation any income and employment tax obligations) required by law to be withheld with respect to amounts payable under this Plan.

assistant: Withholdings
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: ¶ 5, 714 A.2d 829. Bay Bridge therefore has not joined this appeal. 2 . Under Article Nine, the plaintiff was entitled to sell the collateral securing the defendants’ debt in a manner and under terms that were commercially reasonable, to apply the proceeds of that sale to satisfy the defendants’ indebtedness, and to claim any remaining deficiency against the defendants. See 11 M.R.S.A. § 9 — 504(1)—(3) (1995). Article Nine also allowed the defendants to seek an order enjoining the sales, or to seek damages from the plaintiff, if the manner or terms of the sales were commercially unreasonable. See 11 M.R.S.A. § 9-507(1) (1995). The defendants did not avail themselves of these protections under Article Nine. 3 . See Butte County Bank v. Hobley, 109 Idaho 402, 707 P.2d 513, 514 (App.1985) (<HOLDING>); Ruidoso State Bank v. Garcia, 92 N.M. 288, Options: A. holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor the irs held a secured interest a tax lien in the property B. holding that article nine remedies remain available to secured party who becomes a judgment creditor C. holding a secured creditor has standing to appeal a ruling that impacted its financial interest in collateral D. recognizing that a secured creditor is not unjustly enriched by receiving collateral that has increased in value without expense to the second creditor E. holding that a secured judgment creditor may pursue simultaneous remedies to collect a debt as long as his pursuit does not constitute harassment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that article nine remedies remain available to secured party who becomes a judgment creditor
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: as to correct an inadvertent omission concerning a hiring freeze. See Gassaway Decl. ¶¶ 8-13; [D.E. 35-7]; [D.E. 35-8]. Moreover, ECSU reposted the position two additional times after .Gray and Cherry applied in order to increase the applicant pool, and such reposting ■ obviously did not favor Gray who already had applied. See Gassa-way Decl. ¶¶ 12-13; Branch - Decl. ¶ 7; [D.E. 35-9]; [D.E. 35-12]; [D.E. 35-13]; [D.E. 35-14];, [D.E. 35-15]. Furthermore,, a job posting for a senior law-enforcement management position that references a preference for law-enforcement management experience is not evidence that an employer intentionally sought to exclude African-Americans in general, or to exclude Cherry in this case. Cf. Feldman v. Law Enf't Assocs. Corp., 752 F.3d 339, 350 (4th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted); Jiminez v. Mary Options: A. holding that a federal court does not sit as a superpersonnel department to review the prudence of employment decisions B. holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts C. holding that because the department of revenue is subordinate to the board of tax review in the decision making process the department is not an adversely affected or aggrieved party having standing to petition for judicial review of the boards order reversing a decision of the department D. holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this court E. holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a federal court does not sit as a superpersonnel department to review the prudence of employment decisions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Landlord and Tenant irrevocably waive the respective rights to trial by jury in any action proceeding or counterclaim brought by either against the other (whether in contract or tort) on any matter arising out of or relating in any way to this Lease, the relationship of Landlord and Tenant or Tenant’s use or occupancy of the Premises.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 plea. 4 . In the district court, both Defendants also challenged the second search of the Cadillac that occurred several days after Defendants' arrest. On appeal, however, neither Defendant reasserts that argument. 5 . The Government may be deemed itself to waive a defendant's appeal waiver if the Government does not assert a motion to enforce the plea agreement or seek to enforce that agreement in its appellate brief. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc) (per curiam); see also United States v. Smith, 500 F.3d 1206, 1210 n. 1 (10th Cir.2007). In Richardson's case, the Government did expressly seek to enforce Richardson's appeal waiver in its answer brief filed with this court. See United States v. Trujillo, 537 F.3d 1195, 1202 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Ibarra-Coronel, 517 Options: A. holding government can seek to enforce a defendants appeal waiver in the governments merits brief B. holding that failure to brief an argument constitutes waiver C. holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue D. holding failure to brief argument constitutes waiver E. recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary

assistant: The best answer is A. holding government can seek to enforce a defendants appeal waiver in the governments merits brief