instruction:
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.
question:
otherwise nonremovable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). While the amended third-party complaint alleges a claim involving a federal question against the Chase Defendants, the Circuits are split on whether section 1441(c) permits removal by a third-party defendant. Compare Lewis v. Windsor Door Co., 926 F.2d 729, 733 (8th Cir.1991) (‘We do not ... believe § 1441(c) was intended to effect removal of a suit, not otherwise within federal jurisdiction, because of the introduction of a third-party claim.” (internal quotations omitted)) and First Nat’l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 465 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) with Carl Heck Eng’rs, Inc. v. Lafourche 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct (B) holding that removal under section 1441c may only be done by the original defendant (C) holding that  1441c does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent (D) recognizing that  1441c limits removal to situations in which a federal question is joined with a separate and independent claim of a nonfederal nature (E) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand
answer:
(B)


question:
testified that he examined bullets and casings found at both S & A Food Store and Fast Freddy’s. He concluded that the .9 millimeter used in the S & A offense was also fired during the Fast Freddy’s offense. Therefore, the State’s evidence showed a strong correlation between the S & A offense and the Fast Freddy’s offense, providing both intent and identity evidence in the Fast Freddy’s offense and eliminating the need for the Vogt Street offense. c. No Need for Vogt Street Offense The evidence outlined above shows that the State’s evidence of Russell’s intent in the Fast Freddy’s offense was strong; therefore, the need for the extraneous Vogt Street offense was minimal at best. See Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 390; Graff v. State, 65 S.W.3d 730, 740 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet ref'd) (<HOLDING>). The State’s evidence showing Russell’s intent 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the cumulative effect of the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant constructively possessed the methamphetamine laboratory discovered in a bedroom she shared with a renter (B) holding that methamphetamine retained for personal use by the defendant who had been convicted of conspiracy to distribute the substance and never argued any of the methamphetamine was lawfully obtained was properly considered contraband with which he was directly involved and therefore relevant conduct (C) holding that the enhancement applied where the defendant possessed a firearm in connection with possessing methamphetamine (D) holding the state did not need this evidence of possession of 147 boxes of cold pills used to manufacture methamphetamine because the state had other convincing evidence to establish the defendants intent to deliver methamphetamine (E) holding that the state is not allowed to suppress evidence but it need not collect evidence for the defendant
answer:
(D)


question:
of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks, 17 Adz.App. 308, 310, 497 P.2d 534, 536 (1972). ¶38 We agree with the trial court that the Richardsons’ claim for declaratory relief regarding future liability to third parties for any failure to maintain the easement is non-justiciable. “ ‘A declaratory relief statute only justifies a declaration of rights upon an existing state of facts, not one upon a state of facts which may or may not arise in the future. Nor will future rights be determined in anticipation of an event that may never happen.’” Moore v. Bolin, 70 Ariz. 354, 357, 220 P.2d 850, 852 (1950) (quoting Annotation, Declaration of Rights or Declaratory Judgments, 87 A.L.R. 1205 (1933)); U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 198 Ariz. 208, 214-15, ¶ 15, 8 P.3d 396, 402-03 (App.2000) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 201 Ariz. 242, 247, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding court will not render judgment on situation that may never occur (B) holding that the court will not interpret the law in such a way as to render a jurisdictional statute a nullity (C) holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal (D) holding that a statute must not be given the one of two reasonable interpretations which will render it unconstitutional (E) holding that district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction and yet that judgment void for lack of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment
answer:

(A)