In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Ex Input:
Dubé, who held a hearing on the summary judgment motions on December 11, 2003. On January 14, 2004, Judge Dubé issued his R & R, which recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that Defendant’s Motion be denied, thereby reversing the decision of the Appeals Council. Having received objections from both parties, the R & R is now ripe for consideration by this Court. Analysis The issues appealed from the Appeals Council are purely questions of law. Although a more restrictive standard of review applies if an appeal of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is based on that decision’s factual findings, no presumption of validity attaches to the Commissioner’s conclusions of law. See Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Therefore; the Court must conduct its own 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although the district court was not required to discuss each of the factors on the record a decision to dismiss stands a better chance on appeal if the appellate court has the benefit of the district courts reasoning (B) holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted (C) holding the courts scope of review is  limited to determining whether the commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the commissioners findings of fact  (D) recognizing that when reviewing for clear error we usually must reverse if the district court applied incorrect legal standards to reach its findings (E) holding the district court can reverse the commissioners decision based on her failure to apply the correct law or to provide the reviewing court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal analysis has been conducted

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
that is presumptively constitutional). The only case of which I am aware construing DeFillippo and denying qualified immunity is Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, 279 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2002). But in that case “two Ninth Circuit cases [were] directly on point” because they had declared parallel statutes of other States — permitting an arrest for refusing to identify oneself — unconstitutional. Id. at 881. That of course does not remotely describe today’s case. Nor does Sandul v. Larion, 119 F.3d 1250 (6th Cir.1997), offer any refuge to Leonard. It dealt not with the question whether an officer could be denied qualified immunity for failing to predict a judicial ruling declaring a statute unconstitutional but with whether the statute covered the plaintiffs conduct. See id. at 1256 (<HOLDING>). In the end, Leonard not only asks us to take 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause (B) holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same (C) holding that shouting epithets from a moving car did not provide probable cause to arrest the plaintiff under a disorderlyconduct statute (D) holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest (E) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment

Ex Output:
(C)


Ex Input:
is reasonable only if the notice includes the date on which and the county in which the alleged crime or bad act occurred and the name of the alleged victim of the crime or bad act.” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07 § 3(g). The record reflects that the State provided notice to appellant of its intention to use evidence of prior convictions and extraneous offenses, and it supplemented its notice. The notices included the information required by Article 37.07, Section 3(g). Additionally, appellan im.App.1998) (analyzing former appellate rule and holding review not preserved unless defendant brings matters to trial court’s attention in a motion for new trial and trial court rules on the motion); Longoria v. State, 154 S.W.3d 747, 762 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.2004, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>). Thus, appellant has waived his contention 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal (B) holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal (C) holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court (D) holding appellants issue was rendered moot because appellant was given the opportunity to make a record in support of his motion for new trial and appellate court considered that record in disposing of only issue raised in the motion for new trial (E) holding where record fails to establish whether and how appellant presented motion for new trial to the trial court it was not timely presented

Ex Output:

(E)