TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: The State, by contrast, argues that because the court’s summary denial of Pinholster’s claim was an adjudication on the merits, we apply the usual deference required by AEDPA. Under our precedent, the California Supreme Court’s denial of Pinholster’s petition for writ of habeas corpus “on the substantive ground that it is without merit,” Pinholster II, 525 F.3d at 754, constitutes a decision on the merits of his federal claim. See Hunter v. Aispuro, 982 F.2d 344, 347-48 (9th Cir.1992) (noting that “the California Supreme Court’s denial of a habeas petition without comment or citation constituted a decision on the merits of the federal claims” (citing Harris v. Superior Court, 500 F.2d 1124, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 1974) (en banc))); Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has not addressed the 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that we ordinarily do not accord precedential value to our unpublished decisions and that such decisions are entitled only to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning citation omitted (B) holding that we must first determine our jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the appeal (C) holding that either the district court or the court of appeals must issue a certificate of appealability on both the merits and the procedural bar before we can consider the merits of a claim that the district court held to be procedurally barred (D) recognizing that we construe postcard denials such as these to be decisions on the merits citing hunter 982 f2d at 348 (E) recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: did not expressly note the officers’ purpose in knocking on the defendant’s door, but it is fairly clear from our description of the facts that they intended to arrest him. Although the defendant was standing inside the doorway of his room, we held that the officers lawfully arrested him because he “ ‘voluntarily exposed himself to warrantless arrest’ by freely opening the door of his motel room to the police.” Id. at 1426 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 626 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir.1980)). Unlike the officers in Jardines and in this case, the officers in Vaneaton were standing in the common space of a motel when they knocked, rather than in the curtilage of a home. We therefore have no need to overrule Vaneaton. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Whether Vaneaton remains good law after 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a three judge panel is free to reexamine the holding of a prior panel when the supreme court has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable (B) holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable (C) holding that where the relevant court of last resort has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable then a threejudge panel of this court and district courts should consider themselves bound by the intervening higher authority and reject the prior opinion of this court as having been effectively overruled (D) holding that a three judge panel is not bound by prior circuit precedent if an intervening decision of a higher authority undercuts the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable (E) holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: of abuse of discretion, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling.’ ” Reynolds v. City of Birmingham, 723 So.2d 822, 824 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (quoting Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 870, 875 (Ala.Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 875 (Ala.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 745, 54 L.Ed.2d 768 (1978)). First, the appellant argues that jurors S.M. and M.L. committed misconduct when they did not respond during voir dire examination to the questions asking whether any members of the venire knew him. However, he did not allege in his motion for a new trial or during the hearing on the motion that S.M. or M.L. knew him. Accordingly, this argument is not properly before this court. See Marshall v. State, 629 So.2d 766 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). Second, the appellant argues that jurors S.M. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified (B) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds (C) holding that notice must state the specific grounds for the departure (D) holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal (E) holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it

SOLUTION:
(A)