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:
right to additional BLM permits or approvals. See, e.g., Lewis v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 673, 676-77 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 992, 91 S.Ct. 456, 27 L.Ed. 2d 440 (1971); Angelina Holly Corp. v. Clark, 587 F.Supp. 1152, 1156 (D.D.C.1984). They hold no more than an expectancy, the loss of which does not constitute a deprivation of property within the meaning of the due process clause of the Constitution. See Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 161, 101 S.Ct. 446, 451, 66 L.Ed.2d 358 (1980); National Consumer Information Center v. Gallegos, 549 F.2d 822, 828 (D.C.Cir.1977). Their absence from the lawsuit does not preclude the district court from issuing the preliminary injunction. Compare Ohio ex rel. Brown v. Callaway, 497 F.2d 1235, 1241 (6th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). C. Exhaustion Mountain States asserts that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding it was error for the court to issue a permanent injunction at a hearing to show cause why a temporary restraining order should not be continued via a preliminary injunction (B) holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified (C) holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction (D) recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated (E) holding that contract with construction company rendered inequitable a preliminary injunction restraining the contractors from performing the contractual obligations

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
to raise any claim contesting Defendants’ entry into her home or taking of photographs, and she cannot add such a claim at this stage of the litigation. To the extent Plaintiff contends that the photographs are inadmissible pursuant to the exclusionary rule, the court disagrees — there is no indication of an illegal search in any of Plaintiff's filings. It appears that Plaintiff voluntarily permitted Defendants to enter the home. After entering the home, the officers were entitled to photograph objects in their plain view, and they were also permitted to photograph evidence they viewed from outside the residence, such as the window screens. See Wilson v. Supt., Attica Corr. Facility, No. 00-CV-0767 (NAM)(GLS), 2003 WL 22765351, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2003) (report and recommendation) (<HOLDING>), adopted, Order, 00-CV-0767 (NAM)(GS) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment (B) holding that visible contraband in plain view within the apartment provided probable cause for an arrest of person found therein (C) holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where the gun cash and a drug ledger were found in one apartment and the drugs were found in a different apartment in the same building (D) holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found (E) holding that photographs taken of items outside defendants apartment that were in plain view of the officer were properly admitted

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
direct violation of trial court orders); see also Imbler, 424 U.S. at 425-r26, 96 S.Ct. 984 (recognizing that the decisions concerning the materiality of evidence not revealed to the defense could impose unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials). Furthermore, Cignetti’s attempt to defeat the defense of absolute prosecutorial immunity by fashioning his claim in terms of a conspiracy is not effective. See Pinaud v. County of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139, 1148 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653, 659 n. 2 (2d Cir.1995)) (“[W]hen the underlying activity at issue is covered by absolute immunity, the ‘plaintiff derives no benefit from alleging a conspiracy.’ ”); Dory v. Ryan, 25 F.3d 81, 83-84 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as discussed more extensively 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for their knowing or inadvertent failure to disclose materially exculpatory evidence (B) holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims (C) holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983 (D) recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability (E) holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony

Ex Output:

(B)