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: Defendants’ Mot. for Summ. Judg. at 22 (“Plaintiffs appear to be claiming that they are entitled to ‘Class of One’ review[.]”)) Furthermore, County Defendants did not explicitly address the appeal issue anywhere in their motion. Given this background, it was not error for the Court to ascribe the “class of one” argument to Plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge, nor was it error for the Court to find that County Defendants had not met their burden on the question of summary judgment. To the extent that County Defendants now contend that Plaintiffs “class of one” argument must fail because no other party has appealed for a waiver, this is a new argument that is not appropriate in a motion for reconsideration. See Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1269 (D.Haw.2005) (<HOLDING>). Should County Defendants wish to re-visit 
 Holding statements: (A) holding court will generally not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal (B) holding that reconsideration pursuant to rule 59 cannot be premised on the same arguments presented in the complaint and motions (C) holding that motions for reconsideration are not appropriate if the movant asks the court to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally (D) holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision (E) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: 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

SOLUTION: (E)

PROBLEM: in any way suggest that it is a payment in lieu of taxes. Instead, the dividend-based payment is calculated based on a percentage of the City’s equity or investment in the properties of the electric division. This sum is not in the nature of an ad valorem tax and is separate and distinct from tax equivalent payments calculated based on the value of the utility’s property. See Town of Middleton v. City of Bolivar, No. W2011-01592-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 2865960, at *18-24 (Tenn.Ct. App. July 13, 2012) (examining the distinction between PILOT payments and other types of fees). Accordingly, the City is not entitled to subtract the dividend based payment required by subsection 693(6) from the total tax equivalent payment made by MLGW prior to calculating Shelby County’s share. See id. at *23 (<HOLDING>). In summary, we agree with the trial court’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes (B) holding that the gas laws mandate that pilots be in lieu of all state city and local taxes or charges did not bear on the utilitys authority to pay franchise fees that were not in the nature of property taxes and that the utility was required to pay both franchise fees and pilots (C) holding that  charges should be given more precise content by taxes and fees  (D) holding that taxes were a claim against the estate that had to be filed in probate court thus reversing an order requiring heirs to pay taxes on estate property because the district court did not have jurisdiction (E) holding that permit fees imposed by statute were not taxes

SOLUTION:
(B)