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.

a sergeant entered the house with her. 2 . Harris testified that he opened the door for the police: "I saw them coming, so I just opened the door.” However, Officer Shepard testified that she knocked on the door and that after no one answered she entered the house through the door, which was unlocked. 3 . We decline to reach the question whether the warrantless entry and the search by the police officers were justified by exigent circumstances. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)(rejecting a "murder scene exception” created by the Supreme Court of Arizona to the requirement of obtaining a warrant). See also Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17, 22, 105 S.Ct. 409, 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984)(applying Mincey); Ex parte Usrey, 527 So.2d 732 (Ala.1987) (<HOLDING>); A.A.G. v. State, 668 So.2d 122, 128 
 Holding statements: (A) holding no liability existed under the circumstances (B) holding that once the scene was secure exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant (C) holding that exigent circumstances were created by dissipation of bloodalcohol content in time needed to obtain a warrant (D) holding that exigent circumstances were present because evidence of bloodalcohol content could disappear during the time necessary to obtain a warrant (E) recognizing that  exigent circumstances do not excuse the failure to secure a warrant when those circumstances are created by government officials who unreasonably and deliberately delay or avoid obtaining the warrant
(B)

pre-trial release on April 12, 1985. Although this appeal has received expedited review, a decision has not yet been rendered by the Second Circuit. Thus a total of only fifty-six (56) non-excludable days have elapsed since Leon was arrested and detained (assuming that the filing of Elba Rodriguez’s omnibus motion stopped the clock as to all the co-defendants). DISCUSSION Leon’s first argument is based upon the interpretation of Section 3164(b) itself, which provides that, “[t]he periods of delay enumerated in Section 3161(h) are excluded in computing the time limitations specified in this section.” Leon argues that this sent C.Cir.1976) and United States v. Mejias, 417 F.Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd. on other grounds, sub nom., United States v. Martinez, 538 F.2d 921 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). According to the House Report accompanying 
 Holding statements: (A) holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases (B) holding that a court examining if a law should be applied retroactively should consider whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment (C) holding that the first amendment definition should be applied by analogy in the franks setting (D) holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk (E) holding that the exclusions should be applied
(E)

section 302, but to preempt it. The debtors argue that precluding conversion of pending cases defeats the purpose of the 1986 Act, pointing to legislative history indicating that the Act was meant to give relief to farm families in economic crisis. See, e.g., 132 Cong.Rec. H9001 (daily ed. Oct. 2, 1986) (remarks of Mr. Synar). However, the purpose of giving farm families relief is not inconsistent with a decision to make the provisions of the new chapter available only in cases filed after the effective date of the Act. Congress could rationally have chosen to avoid disrupting the progress of pending cases, while finding it preferable to change the law governing future cases. Cf. Central Trust Co. v. Official Creditors’ Committee, 454 U.S. 354, 102 S.Ct. 695, 70 L.Ed.2d 542 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Congress’ general intent to give farm 
 Holding statements: (A) holding to the effect that a court must consider section 24 fifth in conjunction with the antidiscrimination provisions of the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 as amended which are codified at title 11 of the united states code (B) holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective (C) holding the broad jurisdictional grant given the bankruptcy courts under the 1978 bankruptcy act unconstitutional (D) holding that the bankruptcy reform act effectively overruled wrenn (E) holding that the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 publ no 95598 92 stat 2549 precluded dismissal of cases pending before enactment of the reform act in order to refile under the act

(E)