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 Q]: of a class consisting of all African-American plant employees. Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion to deny class certification on the basis of the appellants’ direct evidence. B. Statistical Evidence Nucor provided the appellants with actual promotion-related job posting and applicant data from January 2001 to February 2006. According to the appellants’ own expert, statistical analysis of this data resulted in a standard deviation of - .84, a result indicating no statistically significant disparity in the actual versus expected percentage of African-American employees successfully bidding on jobs. J.A. 5872-73. The appellants, however, objected to use of the 2001 to 2006 time period because it included job posting and bidding 759 n. 17 (4th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Since the appellants could not prevail based 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard (B) recognizing that differences between the expected value and the observed number greater than two or three standard deviations are significant (C) recognizing the cause of action (D) recognizing cause of action (E) recognizing that a standard deviation greater than two or three excludes chance as the cause of underrepresentation
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: an interpretation of section 85.321 that would make any party who holds a mineral interest indefinitely liable to all subsequent interest holders for prior alleged damage to the land. The consequences of such an interpretation run contrary to the legislative intent to protect and encourage the development of Texas natural resources. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 59. We are mindful of the consequences of a particular construction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023(5); McIntyre, 109 S.W.3d at 745. Absent a legislative enactment clearly abrogating the common law, we conclude that Emerald does not have standing as a subsequent lessee to pursue a claim under section 85.321 for Exxon’s alleged wrongful actions as a prior lessee. See, e.g., Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 342-43 (Tex.2006) (<HOLDING>). C. Negligence Per Se Because our holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law (B) holding that tex loc govt code  51075 abrogated city of texarkana v city of new boston 141 sw3d 778 texapptexarkana 2004 (C) holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract (D) holding that the city of boston was acting as a market participant when it contracted for public works construction (E) holding that distribution of catalogs to city addresses constituted use within city subject to taxation under municipal code provision
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: by the State Police are accurate and need not be corrected. Citing Feigley v. Department of Corrections, 731 A.2d 220 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), Dunbar contends that he has a due process right to an appeal hearing and that under Section 9151(b) of CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S. § 9151(b), he has the right to have a proper party present at the hearing to defend its interests. Dunbar claims that he was denied due process because DOC, as the agency authorized to enforce and to interpret sentencing orders, was not a party to the proceedings. He asserts that the State Police is not the proper party to defend against the challenge because it is responsible, inter alia, for collecting fingerprint cards and maintaining criminal arrest histories. See Wagaman v. Attorney General, 872 A.2d 244 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (<HOLDING>). The State Police points out that pursuant to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action (B) holding that a proper party must have responsibility to administer or to enforce the law (C) recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms (D) holding that congress may not direct a state to enact or enforce a particular law or type of law (E) recognizing that prevailing party has remedies available at common law to enforce arbitrators award
[EX A]:
(B)