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.

to use the latter route to circumvent Congress’s apparent intent in enacting the AEDPA to bar all review of such decisions. Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1046 (D.C.Cir.1998). In 1997, the Ninth Circuit held that the new restrictions on successive petitions do not prevent a petitioner from bringing a § 2241 claim after he has already brought a § 2255 claim. See United States v. Lorentsen, 106 F.3d 278 (9th Cir.1997). Furthermore, in 1998, the Second Circuit held that a § 2255 petition that followed a § 2241 petition was not barred. See Corrao v. United States, 152 F.3d 188, 191 (2d Cir.1998), citing Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 474 (2d Cir.1 the execution of a sentence are properly raised in a § 2241 petition”); United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 489 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Corrao, 152 F.3d at 191 (“a motion under § 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that subject matter jurisdiction under  2241 is present in the custodial court when the petition challenges the manner location or condition of a sentences execution (B) holding that a petition under  2241 attacks the execution of a sen tence while a  2255 petition attacks the validity of a judgment and sentence (C) holding that an attack on the computation and execution of a sentence must come in the form of a  2241 petition (D) holding that  2255 is unavailable to attack execution of sentence (E) holding that it is well settled in this jurisdiction and elsewhere that  2255 will lie only to attack the imposition of a sentence and that an attack on the execution thereof may be accomplished only by way of habeas corpus in the district of confinement
(C)

is narrowly crafted to get to the heart of the motion for summary judgment without allowing a lot of potentially unnecessary discovery. Montoya has said he did not show Wilks or Armijo his computer screen, or tell them Todd’s crimes; if Wilks says othexwise, there will likely be a genuine issue of fact requiring .the Court to deny the motions and allow the parties to proceed to trial. It seems fundamentally unfair to dismiss Todd’s case when a deposition of Wilks may make his case. Further, this deposition will not burden any government employees or entities. Accordingly, the Court finds that this limited discovery falls within the exceptions to disallowing discovery once the defense of qualified immunity has been raised. See Garrett v. C.A. Stratmen [Stratman], M.D., 254 F.3d at 953 (<HOLDING>). The Court does not believe this one 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine (B) holding that where defendant claiming qualified immunity relies on facts that are in dispute qualified immunity cannot be granted (C) recognizing that a discovery order in the context of qualified immunity is not immediately appealable when the defendants immunity claim turns at least partially on a factual question when the district court is unable to rule on the immunity defense without further clarification of the facts and which are narrowly tailored to uncover only those facts needed to rule on the immunity claim are neither avoidable or overly broad (D) holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit (E) holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
(C)

of appeal” and remanding for the trial court to make factual findings as to its basis for the dismissal); Rogers, 262 Ga. App. at 857 (1) (vacating a trial court’s dismissal of an appeal and remanding the case when “[t]he trial court simply granted the motion without elaboration and failed to make the necessary findings as to whether the delay was unreasonable, inexcusable, and caused by [the appellant]”); Wood v. Notte, 238 Ga. App. 748, 749 (1) (519 SE2d 923) (1999) (reversing the trial court’s dismissal order and remanding the case for the trial court to make factual findings when the order “merely granted the motion to dismiss” without making findings as to the reasonableness and excusability of the delay as well as on the issue of causation). 13 See Mitchell, 285 Ga. at 577 (2) (<HOLDING>); Cooper v. State, 235 Ga. App. 66, 67 (2) (508 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that ajlthough ocga  5648 c sets forth the conditions upon which the trial court may dismiss an appeal for delay it does not by its terms require the court to make a formal recitation of those conditions in its order and affirming a trial courts dismissal order which found that the delay was unreasonable but had no express finding that the delay was inexcusable punctuation omitted (B) holding that the trial court made sufficient findings of fact to support its dismissal of an appeal when the order set forth the circumstances surrounding the appealing partys 16month delay in paying court costs and the appellee had moved to dismiss the appeal based on an inexcusable delay caused by the appellants failure to pay costs (C) holding that a partys explanation that the delay in paying costs was caused by a desire to avoid seeking public assistance in payment did not rebut inference (D) holding that evidence that a partys delay in paying costs was caused by a miscommunication was not sufficient to rebut inference (E) holding that trial court made sufficient findings of fact when it dismissed appeal

(B)