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.

Q: in that the timely filing of such claims is both mandatory and jurisdictional. That limitation derives from the proposition of sovereign immunity. It is well established that a claim against the United States is barred absent waiver of sovereign immunity, “ ‘and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.’ ” United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941)). A waiver of immunity cannot be implied; it must be “unequivocally expressed in the statutory text.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192, 116 S.Ct. 2092, 135 L.Ed.2d 486 (1996); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The United States has expressly consented to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal (B) holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity (C) recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states (D) holding that federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim against the united states or one of its agencies absent a clear waiver of sovereign immunity (E) holding that a lack of a waiver of sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction

A: (D)
****
Q: evidence suggesting that each of the hotel stays involved the same individual, (e.g., the perpetrator gave the same fictitious address and/or fictitious telephone number; tips on credit card vouchers were in such amounts that the totals rounded off to even dollar amounts, the perpetrator departed prior to the scheduled end of his stay without checking out). “Evidence of this kind may be sufficient alone to establish a perpetrator’s identity. See United States v. Milhollan, 599 F.2d 518, 524-25 (3d Cir.1979) (finding similar modus operandi evidence probative of identity); 2 Jack B. Wein-stein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 404[16] (1992) (discussing "signature” evidence in context of Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)).” See also Featherstone v. Estelle, 948 F.2d 1497 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Evidence of individual modus operandi may be 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that admission of testimony which denominated appellants modus operandi in previously uncharged and charged crimes was not clearly erroneous (B) holding that rule 404b evidence is probative of intent only when the prior acts were part of the same scheme or involved a similar modus operandi as the present offense (C) holding that prior con victions are not related simply because the crimes used the same modus operandi were part of a crime spree or shared the same motive (D) holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive (E) holding other crimes evidence was properly admitted to establish modus operandi when the defendant attacked older women as they exited their garages in the same area of chicago

A: (A)
****
Q: Matczak v. Frankford Candy and Chocolate Co., 136 F.3d 933, 938 (3d Cir.1997) (“Some individuals suffer from relatively mild forms of epilepsy which cause nothing more than ‘minor isolated mus cle jerks'-so we cannot and do not conclude that all epileptics are substantially limited by the impairment."). See also, e.g., Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Limited, 149 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir.1998) (insulin dependent diabetes is not a per se disability under the ADA); Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 316 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. 118 S.Ct. 871, 139 L.Ed.2d 768 (1998) ("Unlike HW infection, the EEOC has not attempted to classify alcoholism as a per se disability, and we decline to adopt such a questionable position."); Still v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 120 F.3d 50, 52 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Bridges v. City of Bossier, 92 F.3d 329, 336 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim (B) holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada (C) holding disability discrimination claim barred (D) holding that blindness in one eye did not automatically constitute a disability (E) holding that an individual alleged a disability under the ada because he was blind in one eye and had severe diabetes causing him to fall asleep at unpredictable times

A:
(D)
****