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.

Input: Consider Input: Dubé, who held a hearing on the summary judgment motions on December 11, 2003. On January 14, 2004, Judge Dubé issued his R & R, which recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that Defendant’s Motion be denied, thereby reversing the decision of the Appeals Council. Having received objections from both parties, the R & R is now ripe for consideration by this Court. Analysis The issues appealed from the Appeals Council are purely questions of law. Although a more restrictive standard of review applies if an appeal of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is based on that decision’s factual findings, no presumption of validity attaches to the Commissioner’s conclusions of law. See Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Therefore; the Court must conduct its own 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although the district court was not required to discuss each of the factors on the record a decision to dismiss stands a better chance on appeal if the appellate court has the benefit of the district courts reasoning (B) holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted (C) holding the courts scope of review is  limited to determining whether the commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the commissioners findings of fact  (D) recognizing that when reviewing for clear error we usually must reverse if the district court applied incorrect legal standards to reach its findings (E) holding the district court can reverse the commissioners decision based on her failure to apply the correct law or to provide the reviewing court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal analysis has been conducted

Output: (E)


Input: Consider Input: limitations was equitably tolled fails because he did not raise this argument before the district court. See Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Grace’s remaining contentions lack merit. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the burden to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction resides with plaintiff (B) holding that the plaintiff bears the burden when relying on the discovery rule (C) recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented (D) holding that plaintiff bears the burden to timely allege facts supporting equitable tolling (E) holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: Jose Antonio Bonilla-Guzman appeals the judgment of conviction and his 77 month sentence following his guilty plea to a single count of being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Bonilla-Guzman contends that in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court erred by imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) on the basis of prior convictions for aggravated felonies that were not .charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Bonilla-Guzman also contends that Apprendi renders inapplicable Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>). These arguments are foreclosed by this 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that 8 usc  1326b2 is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense (B) holding that the death of a victim may not be considered an aggravating factor in a homicide sentencing (C) recognizing that 8 usc  1326b contains sentencing facts not elements of the offense (D) holding that age factor in sexual assault statute pertains only to sentencing and is not an element of the offense (E) holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor


Output: (A)