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.

Example Input: Athletic Ass’n, 980 F.2d 382, 386-87 (6th Cir.1992). The district court below also acknowledged this interest as a substantial one. TSSAA’s other two justifications, however, are very much in dispute. Brentwood, for example, argues that there is no support in the record for the proposition that student athletes need protection from exploitation. The district court agreed. It concluded that TSSAA offered no proof that exerting undue influence on middle school athletes to recruit them for athletic purposes actually harms those students. Proof of actual harm, however, is not required in order to recognize a state actor’s interest in preventing reasonably anticipated harm. See Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton, Ohio, 240 F.3d 553, 565-66 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Finally, TSSAA’s newly asserted interest in a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the village could regulate doortodoor solicitation based on a fear of an anticipated harm without proof of actual harm (B) holding that likelihood of irreparable harm must be based on evidence in the record not unsupported and conclusory statements regarding harm the plaintiff might suffer (C) recognizing  1951 includes fear of economic harm (D) holding that because persecution cannot be based on a fear of psychological harm alone petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal based on the psychological harm she would suffer if her us citizen daughter were to undergo fgm (E) holding that an essential element of a claim of legal malpractice pursued under either a contract or trespass theory is proof of actual loss rather than breach of a professional duty causing only nominal damages speculative harm or the threat of future harm
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: improperly determined that the “neither expected nor intended” language in the CGL policy constitutes an exclusion. This conclusion alone, however, does not bar coverage for Ribi; it merely imposes on it the burden of establishing an “occurrence.” ¶21 The CGL policy’s core provision defines “occurrence” by reference to those accidents or conditions that result in damage that was “neither expected nor intended.” This provision contains no temporal component and focuses instead on the insured’s expectations regarding damages. Thus, acts that take place over a significant period of time, but cause unexpected damage fall within the definition of an “occurrence” and are entitled to coverage. Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Strainer (1983), 204 Mont. 162, 663 P.2d 338 overruled on other grounds (<HOLDING>). ¶22 Here the District Court found that Ribi 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that intentional acts do not exclude coverage under the occurrence language unless the injury was expected or intended (B) holding that an objective standard to determine whether the injury was intended or expected would be inconsistent with insurance coverage for damage resulting from ordinary negligence (C) holding that under georgia law similar language was virtually absolute and noting that it intended to exclude liability coverage for all liabilities arising out of pollution (D) holding that under maine law the occurrence provision focuses on the property damage after the initial discharge and whether it was expected or intended from the insureds point of view (E) holding that where policies exclude coverage for injuries that are intended or expected the exclusion is applicable if the insured acts with the intent or expectation that bodily injury will result even though the bodily injury that does result is different either in character or magnitude from the injury that was intended
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: 958 S.W.2d 679, 692-93 (Tenn.1997). 5 . The jury convicted Antonio Saulsberry of premeditated murder, especially aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit a robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction for premeditated murder because it was not supported by sufficient evidence. Claude Sharkey entered into a plea bargain agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to felony murder. Kevin Wilson also entered into a plea bargain agreement. Clashaun Sharkey was tried separately, but the record does not reveal the verdict in that trial. 6 . Because we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error, we cannot find the error harmless. See Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1837, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the denial of due process in a particular case is subject to harmless error analysis (B) holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis (C) holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis (D) holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis (E) holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather  where objected to  is subject to harmless error analysis
Example Output:
(D)