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]: )4 mile away. Fifth, also at this time, a vehicle registered to Nelson pulled in and parked next to Miller’s car. Sixth, the note at the boat ramp informed Kaplan that he was being watched. Seventh, Miller and Nelson both left the lake at the same time Kaplan left. Eighth, Nelson arrived at the same McDonald’s immediately after Kaplan arrived. Ninth, a passenger from Nelson’s car approached Kaplan’s vehicle and peered into Kaplan’s vehicle from a distance of 10 feet away. Tenth, Nelson drove home from the McDonald’s using what would normally be described as counter-surveillance techniques. Finally, Miller changed his story as to why he was at the lake that day at that time. See Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777 n. 10, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1289-90, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Penagos, 823 F.2d 346, 348 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an agreement may be inferred entirely from circumstantial evidence (B) holding that the conspiratorial agreement may be proved by circumstantial evidence including the acts and conduct of the coconspirators and the inferences that may be drawn from their acts (C) holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence (D) recognizing that identity of a substance as cocaine may be proved by circumstantial evidence (E) holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: of priorities for economic development” — were the centers of power in many areas of importance. Harry Scheiber, Federalism and the American Economic Order, 1789-1910, Law and Soc’y (Fall 1975) 57, 97. See generally id. at 86-100 (discussing diffusion of power and rnment’s contentions here ... would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.”); id. at 578, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (“[T]he federal balance is too essential a part qf our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene when one or the other level of Government has tipped the scales too far.”); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (<HOLDING>); id. at 178, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (“No matter how 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that despite 1985 amendments minimum jurisdictional amount remains 50000 (B) holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively (C) holding that an unconstitutional policy may be inferred from an officials single decision or act (D) holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect (E) holding unconstitutional taketitle provision of the lowlevel radioactive waste policy amendments act of 1985
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: statute? [Counsel]: There’s no answer that I can give Your Honor, just wasn’t done, and my argument is that the merits of the statute, the substance, the intent of it has been fulfilled based on the report that has been provided. It is apparent that non-compliance with the statute in this case was due to attorney carelessness. An attorney’s carelessness does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. See Palanque, supra, 327 N.J.Super. at 164, 742 A.2d 1002; see also Burns v. Belafsky, 326 N.J.Super. 462, 471-72, 741 A.2d 649 (App.Div.1999); Hyman Zamft Manard, L.L.C. v. Cornell, 309 N.J.Super. 586, 593, 707 A.2d 1068 (App.Div.1998); cf. Hartsfield v. Fantini, 149 N.J. 611, 619, 695 A.2d 259 (1997) and Wallace v. JFK Hartwyck at Oak Tree, Inc., 149 N.J. 605, 610, 695 A.2d 257 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The order is reversed. The case is remanded 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in both eases that an attorneys mistake cannot give rise to extraordinary circumstances capable of relaxing the thirtyday limitations period for filing a demand for a trial de novo after arbitration (B) holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo (C) holding plaintiffs motion for trial de novo of award in counterclaim only but not of damages awarded in main cause of action was not void and remanding for a trial de novo of both the main cause of action and the counterclaim (D) holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard (E) recognizing de novo standard of review
[EX A]:
(A)