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]: the sufficiency of the evidence,” we “must affirm the verdict ‘if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the evidence that the elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the verdict.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Myers, 104 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1218, 117 S.Ct. 1709, 137 L.Ed.2d 834 (1997)). hi. A. The principal issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in admitting the text messages obtained from Govan’s cell phone. First, Govan argues that the district court erred by applying the good-faith exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Govan argues that for the good-faith 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required (B) holding that because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search (C) holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant (D) holding that evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not barred by the exclusionary rule (E) holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid
[A]: (D)


[Q]: charge for each item or items. The Trial Court, however, refused to admit the last page of the bill that contained only a description of miscellaneous and a corresponding charge. Plaintiff had no testimony or other evidence to explain to the jury anything about the charge listed on the last page of the bill. The Trial Court stated such a description would force the jury to speculate regarding what supplies were encompassed within the charge for these miscellaneous items. A jury may not engage in speculation. Stringer v. Cooper, 486 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tenn.Ct.App.1972) (stating “we understand the holding in those cases and many more like them to be that a jury may not speculate as to cause when one is not shown.... ”); Moon v. Johnston, 47 Tenn.App. 208, 337 S.W.2d 464, 469 (1959) (<HOLDING>). Without any testimony or other evidence to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide (B) holding a jury is not permitted to speculate or guess as to proximate cause (C) holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury (D) holding proximate cause almost always a question solely for the jury (E) holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury
[A]: (B)


[Q]: or disapproval of development plans. ¶ 53. Allowing the circuit court to balance the equities when an injunction is requested under Wis. Stat. § 59.69(11) will not render "meaningless the entire line of case law regarding the standard of unnecessary hardship which must be met in order for a variance applicant to be properly granted a variance." State's brief at 7. Instead, the circuit court, sitting in equity, should weigh heavily the factors considered by boards of adjustment in determining unnecessary hardship, see Wis. Stat. § 59.694(7)(c), as well as traditional equitable considerations. Equitable defenses, such as laches, estoppel, or unclean hands should also be weighed in appropriate cases. See, e.g., Ramaker v. Cities Service Oil Co., 27 Wis. 2d 143, 153, 133 N.W.2d 789 (1965) (<HOLDING>). See, also, Hargreaves v. Skrbina, 662 P.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding  he who seeks equity must do equity  (B) recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action (C) holding a shareholders derivative action even where the only relief allowed is a recovery of damages is nevertheless a suit in equity and not an action at law (D) recognizing that there may be situations where laches or estoppel would justify a court of equity in denying an injunction at the suit of private parties (E) recognizing that an injunction cannot bind parties who are not before this court
[A]:
(D)