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: in their Constitution, or from the Congress that the Constitution had empowered. We made a similar point in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S., at 416, where we considered a suit against a State in another State’s courts: “This [traditional] explanation [of sovereign immunity] adequately supports the conclusion that no sovereign may be sued in its own courts without its consent, but it affords no support for a claim of immunity in another sovereign’s courts. Such a claim necessarily implicates the power and authority of a second sovereign; its source must be found either in an agreement, express or implied, between the two sovereigns, or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity.” Cf. United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 646 (1892) (<HOLDING>). Subjecting States to federal jurisdiction in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an action cannot be maintained under young in unique circumstances where the suit against the state officer affects an essential attribute of state sovereignty in a manner that the action must be understood as one against the state (B) holding a states regulation of wyoming national guard was insufficient to implicate a special sovereignty interest because of the dual federal and state nature of national guard service (C) recognizing that a suit by the national government against a state does no violence to the inherent nature of sovereignty (D) holding the governors emergency powers to take private property for the public benefit was a special sovereignty interest but the relief requested was not so much of a divestiture of the states sovereignty to render the suit as one against the state itself (E) holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state

Output: (C)


Input: Consider Input: is correct. We will also assume that the court’s erro umed error prejudiced him is that other evidence supports the finding that he was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy. In the district court, Vasquez did not object to the PSR’s statement that he “recruited Wornick and Sella” into the conspiracy. Although the district court did not explicitly find that Vasquez recruited two of his co-conspirators, “[i]t is the law of this circuit that a failure to object to allegations of fact in a[PSR] admits those facts for sentencing purposes.” United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir.2006). And we have held many times that a defendant’s recruitment of co-conspirators supports a § 3B1.1 enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 446 F.3d 1348, 1355 n. 2 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1304 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant was an organizer leader manager or supervisor under  3bllc in part because the defendant actively recruited two individuals to transport drugs (B) holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant was a manager or supervisor under  3bllb in part because he recruited accomplices (C) holding that trial court did not err (D) holding that a trial court did not clearly err in finding that an attorney fees clause materially altered a contract (E) holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant was an organizer or leader under  3blla in part because he recruited coconspirators

Output: (E)


Input: Consider Input: Forrest, 839 So.2d 839, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Nichols v. Paulucci, 652 So.2d 389, 393 n. 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)). Fourth, Ocean World asserts that Columbia submitted itself to Florida jurisdiction by filing lawsuits in Florida, thereby availing itself “of the benefits offered by the Florida judicial system.” However, Columbia’s participation in other lawsuits in Florida concerning subject matters separate and distinct from this lawsuit does not create personal jurisdict , 701 So.2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding "continuous systematic business contacts” where the defendant sold 50,000 office chairs for approximately $1,000,000.00 per year over several years to a Miami distributor); Garris v. Thomasville-Thomas County Humane Soc’y, Inc., 941 So.2d 540, 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>); Banco Inversion, S.A. v. Celtic Fin. Corp., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that texasbased organization was subject to general jurisdiction in florida because it solicited contributions from florida residents using internet websites (B) holding that texasbased organization was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in florida even though it did not maintain office or have any employees or agents in florida on a regular basis personal jurisdiction was ultimately exerted because organization solicited contributions from florida residents using local television stations and internet websites (C) holding defendant had requisite contacts under section 481932 florida statutes where it solicited consulting and other services from a florida corporation in which a substantial amount of the services sought by defendant were performed in florida (D) holding that general jurisdiction existed where defendant directed significant advertisement towards residents of florida targeting the populous florida market  solicited donations from floridians and had ongoing relationship with several florida animal aid organization including arrangements under which it regularly transferred animals to them for adoption in florida (E) holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree


Output: (D)