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.

with our ability to review the sentence imposed by the district court for substantive reasonableness because, on review, we must compare the sentence imposed with the correctly calculated Guidelines sentencing range. He contends the relevant Guidelines sentencing range is the post-departure Guidelines sentencing range. But it is the pre-departure Guidelines sentencing range that the district court must correctly calculate and that we must use when we review a sentence for substantive reasonableness. See United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 987 (9th Cir.2006) (“[W]e elect to review the district court’s application of the advisory sentencing guidelines only insofar as they do not involve departures.”); see also United States v. Tankersley, 537 F.3d 1100, 1114 n. 11 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). We used the pre-departure sentence for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause (B) holding that a fee application based on claims that were interrelated nonfrivolous and raised in good faith may still be excessive where the applicant achieved only partial or limited success (C) holding forbearance to sue is a good consideration for a promise founded thereon and it is only essential that the claim be asserted in good faith (D) holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law (E) holding mohamed is still good law
(E)

in Germantown and Eastern Montgomery County, which the County determined is causing the need to expand the highway system. In Gaithersburg East, the fact that programmed highways are expected to relieve the traffic congestion and there is no need to build unprogrammed highways provides a rational basis to treat the new development in this area differently than the new development in the existing impact districts, where unprogrammed highwa e sub judice is Chapter 808, which gives Montgomery County broad taxing authority, authority that was lacking in those other jurisdictions. See also Home Builders v. Board of Palm Beach County Comm’rs, 446 So.2d 140 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1983), cert. denied, 451 So.2d 848 (Fla.1984), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 976, 105 S.Ct. 376, 83 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984) (<HOLDING>). We likewise hold that the impact tax imposed 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection (B) holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution (C) holding that neither the due process clause nor the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment require the appointment of counsel on a petition for discretionary review to a state supreme court (D) holding that the impact fee there imposed did not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment using the rational basis test we discuss here (E) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection
(D)

under the considerations provided in § 6.” Cosme, 632 N.E.2d at 835. First and most importantly, Massachusetts’ interests in this case substantially exceed those of Rhode Island. Robidoux is a Massachusetts resident who, after obtaining the approval of a Massachusetts administrative judge, received benefits from a Massachusetts workers’ compensation policy for an injury he suffered while employed by a Massachusetts company. Even where the injury occurs out of state, Massachusetts retains a significant interest in the extent to which a resident is compensated for a workplace injury. See, e.g., id. at 836; see also Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 26 (expressly authorizing paying benefits for injuries sustained outside the state); cf. Pevoski v. Pevoski, 371 Mass. 358, 358 N.E.2d 416 (1976) (<HOLDING>). In addition to its interest in the amount of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york (B) holding the new york state wiretap statute controlling on this issue (C) holding in a wifes suit against her husband stemming from a new york car accident that massachusetts law governed spousal immunity issue in part because the economic and social impact of this litigation will fall on massachusetts domiciliaries and a massachusetts insurer (D) holding that application of georgia law to dispute arising under life insurance policy issued by massachusetts insurer to new york resident violated due process clause where only georgia contact was that beneficiary moved there (E) holding that new york law applies to this matter

(C)