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.

Example Input: be ascertained from the creating instrument, the permissible uses of an easement acquired by prescription are necessarily defined by the use of the servient land during the prescriptive period.”). In French, plaintiffs acquired a prescriptive right of user over a roadway for certain discrete purposes based on their past use of the property. We concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to make a different use of the roadway because it would increase the burden on the servient estate and it would extend the right acquired by plaintiffs’ prior use of the property. French, 135 Vt. at 80, 369 A.2d at 1388. Thus, French does not support plaintiffs’ assertion that the reasonable use of the right>of-way at issue here depends on its historical use. Cf. Nelson, 113 Vt. at 172, 32 A.2d at 146 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as previously discussed, we agree 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance (B) holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone (C) recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement (D) holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement (E) recognizing that one cannot have an easement in his own land
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: efforts to persuade an Immigration Judge to exercise her discretion to grant him a deportation waiver — the removal of that discretion would constitute a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Furthermore, given that parole eligibility is “considered an integral part of any sentence,” Shepard, 556 F.2d at 654; see also Warden, 417 U.S. at 658, 94 S.Ct. at 2535-36, I think that the availability and likelihood of a deportation waiver should also be so considered. In explaining the basis for its con- elusion that parole eligibility or gain time should be considered part of 86, 68 L.Ed. 549 (1924) (“It is well settled that deportation, while it may be burdensome and severe for the alien, is not a punishment.”); Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591, 33 S.Ct. 607, 608, 57 L.Ed. 978 (1913) (<HOLDING>) (citing Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the amount of sanctions is appropriate only when it is the minimum that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior (B) holding that the determination that an alien is an undesirable person is not a conviction of crime nor is the deportation a punishment it is simply a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want (C) holding that it is not (D) holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime (E) holding that habeas review is  for any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: Id., 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 189, 324 P.3d at 85. While the dissent recognized that it might be desirable to have the department of revenue participate in decisions involving a determination' of the legality of sales taxes for policy reasons, such participation could be achieved by joining the department as a party to the litigation. Id., 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 189, 324 P.3d at 86. Based 'on the above considerations, we conclude that Iowa Code section 423.47 provides an exclusive remedy for disputes between consumers and retailers over retailers’ representations to consumers about the.tax consequences of transactions. In this tax case, the retailer simply collects the- taxes and holds them in trust for the state. Iowa Code § 423.2(12); see, e.g., Cash v. State, 628 So.2d 1100, 1101 (Fla.1993) (<HOLDING>); Stoloff, 24 A.3d at 372-73 (explaining that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal (B) holding that a retail seller was an agent of the state in the collection of taxes and thus owed a fiduciary duty toward the state (C) holding that deference is owed to state agencys interpretation of state law (D) holding that federal courts will not enjoin the collection of unconstitutional state taxes where the taxpayer has a plain adequate and complete remedy at law (E) holding that broker owed no fiduciary duty to client as a matter of law
Example Output:
(B)