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 Input:
are complete and present within the proscribed state statute of limitations. Id. at 393-94, 127 S.Ct. 1091. Plaintiff argues that because Wallace dealt with a false arrest and not a search and seizure, its analysis is inapplicable. (D.E. 8, Plaintiffs Response). However, the general rule of Wallace soundly applies to a search and seizure scenario, as noted by the Sixth Circuit and several Kentucky district courts. See Harper, 293 Fed. Appx. at 391 n. 1 (“Wallace also clarified that Heck does not delay the accrual of an otherwise complete and present cause of action when judgment in the plaintiffs favor ‘would impugn an anticipated future conviction .... ’ Harper’s claims thus accrued on July 31, 2003, the date of the alleged illegal search and seizure.”); Kenney, 2011 WL 1582125 at *6 (<HOLDING>); Lovins v. Hurt, No. 11-216-JBC, 2011 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiffs  1983 claim accrued on the date of the alleged illegal search and seizure (B) holding that a ruling on preindictment motion that search and seizure were legal collaterally estopped defendant from later moving to suppress evidence claiming that search and seizure were illegal (C) holding that section 1983 action for unlawful search and seizure accrued on dates of seizures rather than date on which state court declared the acts illegal (D) holding that the plaintiffs cause of action accrued on the date of the repealer statute not on the date the wrong occurred despite the federal courts ruling as to the statutes unconstitutionality (E) holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale

Ex Output:
(A)


Ex Input:
(3) Dr. Hickman’s observation that Seever’s surgeries, residual pain, and physical limitations “have taxed his psychological coping abilities,” ApltApp. at 372. But Dr. Hick man interpreted this information as presenting no more than a slight impairment—meaning that he could still function well—as to understanding, remembering, and carrying out detailed instructions, and he declined to identify any other mental capabilities affected by Seever’s depression. We will not fault the ALJ for failing to interpret Seever’s symptoms and test results differently than Dr. Hickman. See Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1022 (10th Cir.1996) (observing that an ALJ may not substitute his lay opinion for a medical opinion); Hamilton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1500 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Nor are we convinced that the ALJ should have 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that this court may not reweigh evidence (B) recognizing this method (C) recognizing this presumption (D) recognizing this distinction (E) recognizing this rule

Ex Output:
(A)


Ex Input:
asserted on the petition date even if they were not disclosed in the debtor’s schedules. Goodman v. Phillip R. Curtis Enters., Inc., 809 F.2d 228 (4th Cir.1987). A trustee has the right to rid the estate of property that is burdensome or of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 554. If a trustee neither abandons nor administers a scheduled asset, the asset is deemed to have been abandoned upon the closing of the case. 11 U.S.C. § 554(c). However, property of the estate that is not abandoned and is not administered remains property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). Thus, if property was not properly scheduled by a debtor, it is not abandoned when the bankruptcy case is closed. E.g., Vreugdenhill v. Navistar Int’l Transport Corp., 950 F.2d 524, 525 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Hamlett, 304 B.R. 737, 741 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an undisclosed cause of action which existed at the time of filing remained an asset of the estate and allowing the debtor to reopen the case to formally schedule the cause of action (B) holding property that was technically abandoned under  554c was not brought back into estate by virtue of reopening the case (C) holding that a debtor must formally schedule the property before the close of the case in order for such property to be abandoned pursuant to section 554c (D) holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate (E) holding that property is not abandoned by operation of law unless the debtor formally scheduled the property before the close of the case

Ex Output:

(C)