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.
--------
Question: that the State of Colorado is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and that the District Court properly dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim against Colorado for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We next turn to the court’s decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim against the University of Colorado Board of Regents for lack of standing. We need not address this issue, however, because the Colorado Board of Regents is, like the state itself, entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Buchwald v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Med., 159 F.3d 487, 494 n. 3 (10th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e have no doubt that UNMSM, its Regents, and the Committee on Admissions are ‘arms of the state,’ entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Lujan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 69 F.3d 1511, 1522 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Hensel v. Office of Chief Admin. Hearing 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the eleventh amendment protects a state from suit by its own citizens (B) holding that the university of californias board of regents is shielded from suit under the eleventh amendment (C) holding that a debtors adversary proceeding against the university of virginia to determine the dischargeability of a debt is a suit for eleventh amendment purposes (D) holding that governors duty to nominate and appoint members of the board of regents of the university of hawaii is subject to a reasonable time standard judged by the totality of the circumstances (E) holding that the department of corrections was entitled to eleventh amendment immunity from suit under section 1981

Answer: (B)


Question: despite the underlying circumstances. See United States v. Moudy, 132 F.3d 618, 620 (10th Cir.1998) (stating that “[ejvery escape scenario is a powder keg, which may or may not explode into violence and result in physical injury to someone at any given time, but which always has the serious potential to do so” and that this characterization applies “to all escapes, whether or not violence was actually involved”) (citing United States v. Gosling, 39 F.3d 1140, 1142 (10th Cir.1994)). C. Sixth Amendment Claim Finally, Mr. Flowers argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by failing to submit the fact of his prior convictions to a jury. This argument is also foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1223, 1226 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM Mr. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the fact of prior convictions under  924e need not be charged in an indictment and proven to a jury and also that the government need not charge in an indictment and prove to a jury that a defendants prior conviction constitutes a violent felony under  924e (B) holding that district court may enhance sentence based on fact of prior convictions under  924e regardless of whether admitted by defendant or found by jury (C) holding that facts regarding prior convictions need not be charged in an indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (D) holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (E) holding that elements of statute which became  924e need not be reflected in indictment for crime charged

Answer: (A)


Question: by the Eleventh Amendment But He Has Not Established Qualified Immunity or Immunity Under Noerr-Pen-nington in His Individual Capacity. 1. Hoffman concedes that Markwell cannot be sued for civil damages in his official capacity. Hoffman concedes that the Eleventh Amendment immunizes Markwell from Hoffman’s claim of damages against Markwell in his official capacity as State’s Attorney. See Pl. Resp. to Def. Mot. to Dismiss (d/e 18) at 11-12. However, because Hoffman is also seeking an injunction against Markwell as to his involvement in advising the Board to exclude Hoffman from participation in Board activities, Markwell remains in this lawsuit in his official capacity for the purposes of the claimed injunctive relief. See Ameritech Corp. v. McCann, 297 F.3d 582, 586 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations omitted). 2. Markwell is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity (B) holding that a party can sue a state officer in his or her official capacity to enjoin prospective action that would violate federal law (C) holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983 (D) holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation (E) holding that a prisoner can under rluipa pursue nominal damages against a state officer in her official capacity

Answer:
(B)