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.

[Q]: 235, 239 (Fed.Cir.1988). On appeal, Mr. Baney does not challenge the Board’s determination that collateral estoppel bars his leave-related claims. We agree with the Board that Mr. Baney’s claims are barred by collateral estoppel because they challenge the same issues that Mr. Baney actually litigated and that were necessary to the decisions in previous proceedings. See, e.g., Baney v. Dep’t of Justice, 409 Fed.Appx. 319 (Fed.Cir.2010) (finding no USERRA violation for charging Mr. Baney with eleven and a half hours of AWOL in November 2008); Baney v. Dep’t of Justice, 263 Fed.Appx. 892 (Fed.Cir.2008) (finding no USERRA violation for charging Mr. Baney with 23 days of leave while on active military duty for 30 days); see also Baney v. Dep’t of Justice, 327 Fed.Appx. 895 (Fed.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s decision 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant (B) holding that collateral attacks on bankruptcy courts jurisdiction are barred by res judicata (C) holding that the plaintiffs claims were barred by res judicata when the federal courts judgment was finalized by denial of his petition for certiorari (D) holding that mr baneys challenge to being charged with 208 hours of annual leave while on active military duty for 30 days was barred by the res judicata effects of our 2008 decision (E) holding that a trustees claim was barred by res judicata and stating that the trustee could have asked the bankruptcy court to reserve his fraud claims for later adjudication which would have avoided his claims being barred
[A]: (D)


[Q]: (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>).' Amara’s remaining contentions are 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that proper remedy for failure to exhaust is dismissal of the claim without prejudice (B) recognizing that dismissal may be proper where plaintiff concedes the failure to exhaust (C) holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice (D) holding dismissal with prejudice is appropriate remedy for failure to timely file undertaking (E) holding that a review committee of the kansas board for discipline of attorneys had the authority to dismiss a complaint against an attorney with or without prejudice and when dismissal was ordered without specifying the nature of the dismissal the dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of later proceedings on the same matter
[A]: (A)


[Q]: employees and hiring security guards. We conclude that this showing was sufficient to raise triable disputes of fact as to foreseeability and duty. See Williams v. Utica Coll. of Syracuse Univ., 453 F.3d at 117-18 (construing New York precedent “to indicate that even a few past incidents spaced over a few years may, in appropriate circumstances, be enough to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the relevant criminal activity was foreseeable”); Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519-20, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 613-14, 407 N.E.2d 451 (1980) (concluding that rational jury could find from history of criminal activity in other parts of building that criminal incident in the lobby was “significant, foreseeable possibility”); Stevens v. Kirby, 86 A.D.2d at 394, 450 N.Y.S.2d at 610 (<HOLDING>). 2. Breach “[T]he owner of a public 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot (B) holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties (C) holding that claimant was entitled to workers compensation because he was injured in a parking lot which was leased by his employer (D) holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs (E) holding that jury could conclude from prior incidents involving breaches of the peace  that the assault in the parking lot was a significant foreseeable possibility which defendant had a duty to guard against
[A]:
(E)