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: doing something that can be characterized as resistance—even when that resistance includes physically preventing an officer’s manipulations of his body.”). In addition, the black-and-white bus surveillance video fails to clearly show what occurred as the officers forcefully “escorted” Hulett off the bus, and leaves the viewer wondering whether, and to what extent, additional force may have been applied during those moments that might have contributed to plaintiffs broken hip. And even following plaintiffs removal from the bus, it cannot be said as a matter of law that Sergeant Galvin acted in an objectively reasonable manner by dragging plaintiff some distance across the pavement, since plaintiff did not appear to be offering any further resistance at that point. Tracy, 623 F.3d at 98 (<HOLDING>); Meyes v. Baltimore Cnty., 713 F.3d 723, 733 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that otherwise acceptable use of pepper spray became excessive when arrestee was offering no further active resistance (B) holding that bystander prisoners who were exposed to pepper spray when prison officials dispensed spray across their pod area to break up a fight were not subjected to excessive force (C) holding that no objectively reasonable police officer could believe that after vinyard was under arrest handcuffed behind her back secured in the back seat of a patrol car with a protective screen between the officer and the arrestee an officer could stop the car grab such arrestee by her hair and arm bruise her and apply pepper spray to try to stop the intoxicated arrestee from screaming and returning the officers exchange of obscenities and insults during a short fourmile jail ride (D) holding that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protestors was excessive force (E) holding that two bursts of pepper spray to stop fighting in a cell was not considered excessive force and did not violate prisoners eighth amendment rights

A: (A)
****
Q: intent and the public authority defense at a new trial, it should also provide an appropriate instruction articulating that reliance on the apparent authority of a government official is not a viable defense. 7 . In light of our conclusion that the district court properly granted a new trial, we need address only one additional issue on appeal. Michael contends that his indictment was defective because it failed to provide him with proper notice of the three drug-related violations underlying the continuing criminal enterprise count. His argument is without merit, however, because the CCE count in the indictment expressly incorporated by reference the predicate drug violations upon which the jury relied in convicting Michael. See United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 863 (4th Cir.1996) 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a court is permitted to rely on documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice (B) holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct (C) holding that an indictment which incorporated by reference the predicate drugrelated violations was sufficient to provide adequate notice for a cce count (D) holding that a single implicit reference to the email in which the complaint makes no explicit reference to nor does it quote at all from is insufficient to establish that the email was incorporated by reference into the complaint (E) holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense

A: (C)
****
Q: 385 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966). 34 . Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979). 35 . Id. at 741, 99 S.Ct. 2577 (emphasis added). 19 . See id. V 5. 20 . See Opp. Mem. at 3. 21 . Omegle.com Privacy Poli meno, 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991). 50 . Probation Order at 2 ¶ U. 51 . Opp. Mem. at 11. 52 . United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 117, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984) (emphasis added). 53 . See Katz, 389 U.S. at 356-57, 88 S.Ct. 507. 54 . Smith, 442 U.S. at 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577. 55 . Opp. Mem. at 11. 56 . Id. 57 . DiTomasso’s Reply Memorandum ("Rep. Mem.”), at 5. 58 . Opp. Mem. at 13. 59 . Id. at 12. 60 . Id. at 13. 61 . Id. at 12. 62 .See Warshak v. United States, 490 F.3d 455 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>), vacated en hanc on other grounds, 532 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of stored email (B) holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells (C) holding that defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy in contents of locked safe stored in his apartment but owned by third party (D) holding that users have reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages despite advance warning that the messages could be read (E) holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable

A:
(A)
****