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.

[Q]: some recognized legal théory. Spinale v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 621 F.Supp.2d 112, 119 (S.D.NY 2009) (McMahon, J.) aff'd sub nom., 356 Fed.Appx: 465 (2d Cir.2009). However, a complaint containing “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged” will survive a motion to dismiss. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). B. Prison Litigation Reform Act As a threshold matter, the parties dispute whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) bars Plaintiffs from recovering compensatory damages. In relevant part, the statute states that “[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a priso N.Y.2002) (Scheindlin, J.) aff'd, 56 Fed.Appx. 43 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). For the well-articulated reasons in Judge 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint (B) holding with respect to another part of the plra that the court must determine the prisoners status on the date the suit or appeal is brought rather than at some other time (C) holding that the plra only applies to plaintiffs who are incarcerated at the time an action is commenced (D) holding that the plra bar applies to lawsuits brought by inmates regardless of whether the inmate is incarcerated at the time of filing or whether the plaintiff is subsequently paroled sentenced or released (E) holding that the donovan rule applies regardless of whether the injunction is issued before or after the federal court filing
[A]: (D)


[Q]: for ‘non-generic burglary’ does not.” United States v. Rainer, 616 F.3d 1212, 1213 (11th Cir.2010). A “generic” burglary is “any crime, regardless of its exact definition or label, having the basic elements of unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime.” Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). A “non-generic” burglary is one that “do[es] not include all of the elements essential to generic burglaries,” including burglaries of boats, automobiles, and other non-buildings. Rainer, 616 F.3d at 1214. The government has a legitimate interest in “prevent[ing] repeat offenders from continuing to victimize society.” See United States v. Johns, 984 F.2d 1162, 1164 (11th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court in Taylor determined that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding substantive due process not violated when licensing decisions are based on scheme rationally related to a governmental interest (B) holding that the particular method is not rationally related to legitimate government interest if it is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable (C) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection as rule was uniformly applied not arbitrary and rationally related to legitimate government interest (D) recognizing due process concerns inherent in sentencing based on false criminal history (E) holding that sentencing criminals in part based on criminal history is rationally related to a legitimate government interest
[A]: (E)


[Q]: stresses the PCRA court’s conclusion that the report was replete with “ ‘red flags’ of brain damage that indicated the need for neurop[sy]chological evaluations.” Sattazahn, No. 2194-89, slip op. at 45; accord N.T., January 20, 2005, at 185 (testimony of a clinical psychologist confirming that “there were a lot of red flags of brain damage in this case”). Appellee acknowledges the Commonwealth’s position that the record was not provided in response to a subpoena secured by trial counsel; however, he observes that it was otherwise available in court records from the Schuylkill County third-degree murder conviction, which the Commonwealth used to support an aggravating circumstance. See generally Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 389-90, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 2467, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Appellee emphasizes that the PCRA 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a prior conviction is not final and cannot be used to deny appellant community supervision in the primary offense if appellant still has time to file a motion for new trial in the prior conviction case (B) holding that defendants have a federal constitutional right to make a collateral attack on a prior conviction only when that conviction was obtained without the assistance of counsel (C) holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission (D) holding that where the prosecution gives notice that it will rely in aggravation on facts relating to a prior conviction capital defense counsel has an obligation to make a reasonable effort to review the court file pertaining to that conviction (E) 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
[A]:
(D)