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: and to seek collateral relief (except for ineffective assistance of counsel),” United States v. Arevalo-Juarez, 464 F.3d 1246, 1248 (11th Cir.2006) (citation omitted), but only in judicial districts that participate in a[n] "early disposition program authorized by the Attorney General of the United States and the United States attorney for the district in which the court resides.” U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. This court has rejected Bravo’s argument that the “fast track” program creates a sentencing disparity, and we are bound by decisions of prior panels until overruled by this court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. See United States v. Anaya Castro, 455 F.3d 1249, 1252-1253 (11th Cir.2006) (addressing fast-track programs); United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317-18 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 2 . This court has rejected the government's 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in a multipanel circuit prior panel decisions generally are binding upon newlyconstituted panels (B) holding that the panel is bound by decisions of prior panels (C) holding that decisions by prior panels are binding (D) recognizing that a prior panels holding is binding on all subsequent panels (E) holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels

Answer: (C)


Question: delivery to these individuals actually occurred. Sanderson asserted numerous causes of action against the defendants including civil rights and tort claims arising out of Sanderson’s divorce action and his March'2003 arrest for felonious restraint. The felonious restraint charge was later dismissed. Sanderson’s complaint in this lawsuit seeks damages for actions by Thomas and Martens while employed by Walsh County and actions by Judge Geiger while employed by the State of North Dakota. [¶ 3] Walsh County, Thomas, and Martens answered Sanderson’s complaint and moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal for lack of proper service of process. Judge Geiger also moved to dismiss, asserting the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over 2001 ND 101, ¶¶ 8-10, 627 N.W.2d 379 (<HOLDING>). [¶8] Sanderson’s complaint asserts a number 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract (B) holding order dismissing action without prejudice based on contractual forum selection clause is final and appealable because it terminates the litigation in the plaintiffs chosen forum (C) holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum (D) holding that when a forum selection clause designates  an arbitral forum  the proper remedy is dismissal (E) holding appealable dismissal where application of forum selection clause permanently put plaintiff out of district court

Answer: (E)


Question: of a majority of the members of the corporation, Dolores Nas-siff (later Mrs. Miller) was purportedly elected corporate president and director and Mr. Miller was purportedly elected corporate treasurer and director. (At the same meeting, Ms. Belavitch was designated corporate secretary and bookkeeper, but not director.) Even if those voting on May 24, 1978, had been authorized to elect directors, the elections were void for failure to observe restrictions imposed by the articles of incorporation which required directors to be members of the corporation. See S & T Anchorage v. Lewis, 575 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (“The Assignment ... and ... subsequent ratification ... are invalid because they ... are ultra vires acts.”); Wolfson v. Cary, 488 So.2d 864, 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>). Approximately a year later, on May 14, 1979, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that preferred shares were void because invalidly issued and accordingly the common shares into which the preferred had been transferred were void (B) holding that shares of stock in husbands name had not been transmuted (C) holding void shares issued in excess of the amount of common shares authorized in the articles of incorporation (D) holding that rule 11 agreement stating that one party would return shares of stock for a specific amount of money contained essential terms (E) holding preliminary offer tended to prove the lowest possible value of the shares

Answer:
(C)