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.

Input: Consider Input: of judgment); Fed.R.CivJP. 62(a) (requiring prevailing parties to wait until ten days after the date on which a judgment is entered before they may execute on a judgment); Fed.R.App.P. 4 (requiring that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the date on which a judgment is entered). The Advisory Committee Notes on Rule 58 bolster this conclusion. Those notes state that the rule is designed to eliminate uncertainties about precisely when a court rendered a judgment. Such uncertainties had arisen in contexts analogous to the one in the instant case, where courts wrote opinions or memoranda “con 2d 940, 942 (5th Cir.1987) (discussing the Advisory Committee’s concern with eliminating uncertainties); Duffer v. American Home Assurance Co., 512 F.2d 793, 799 (5th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). See generally 11 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law (B) holding that the trial courts oral expression in open court of its future intention to render a judgment was not itself a judgment but rather the trial courts written findings of fact and conclusions of law were its judgment (C) holding that although trial courts oral opinion may be used as a reference in the interpretation of its written findings of fact it is not a finding of fact (D) holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment (E) holding that motion accepting judgment but requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law was not directed against the judgment

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: June 1993 was being denied. Katz asserts that he never received the letter and, therefore, until March 27, 1995, when he received the notice of the denial of coverage, Colonial had led him to believe that his policy covered registered nursing care provided at a general hospital. As the dispute as to whether Katz actually received the letter cannot be resolved at this juncture, I now consider whether, if he did not receive the letter, Colonial should be estopped from denying coverage for the October/November private nursing care. In order to prevail under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, Katz must show (1) a material representation, (2) reasonable reliance upon that representation, and (3) damage resulting from that representation. Lee v. Burkhart, 991 F.2d 1004, 1009 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Katz asserts that Colonial’s failure to 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel (B) recognizing cause of action (C) holding that ejven if there were no express preemption under erisa  514a of the cause of action in that case it would be preempted because it conflicted directly with an erisa cause of action (D) recognizing the cause of action (E) recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa

Output: (E)


Input: Consider Input: breaches of their duties to maintain safe prison conditions and provide medical care. The MVCC defendants and the federal defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to grant these motions. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Varma failed to state a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (“FTCA”), because he was not confined in a facility operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Magistrate Judge further concluded that Varma did not state a claim under Bivens because a Bivens cause of action does not lie against a private prison or its employees, and because v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252-55 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Holly v. Scott, 434 F.3d 287, 295-97 (4th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that insufficiency of evidence not cognizable in postconviction claim (B) holding claim is not cognizable (C) holding that asserting a mere protected interest in a process itself is not a cognizable claim (D) holding that a claim seeking dna testing is cognizable under section 1983 (E) holding that a burrage claim is cognizable under  2255


Output: (B)