TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: appeals from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion for reconsideration challenging the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Henderson contends that the district abused its discretion by denying his motion, which we construe as a motion for relief from final judgment based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1171-72 (9th Cir.1989). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Henderson’s motion because his almost two-year delay before filing the motion was not reasonable. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c) (“A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time.... ”); In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an over twoyear delay without any excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law (B) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to find an unexcused twoyear delay unreasonable (C) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (D) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony (E) holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable

SOLUTION: (B)

PROBLEM: at the La Vega site. The fact that the Esso station at La Vega ceased its operations in 1998 does not change the prospective nature of plaintiffs’ suit at the time it was brought. Moreover, in PauÉuxet the Court stated that it did not agree “with the reasoning which, apparently, led the Louisiana district court, following the Hamker decision, to dismiss a number of actions simply because no violations occurred on the dates the complaints were filed. A plaintiff who makes allegations warranting injunctive relief in good faith, judged objectively, may recover a penalty judgment for past violations even if the injunction proves unattainable.” Pawtuxet, 807 F.2d at 1094 (citing .1992); Umatilla Waterquality Protective Ass’n v. Smith Frozen Foods, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1312, 1322 (D.Or.1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court concludes as 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters (B) holding that a worker injured on actual navigable waters in the course of employment is covered under the lhwca (C) holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states (D) holding a discharge of pollutants is ongoing if the pollutants continue to reach navigable waters even if the discharger is no longer adding pollutants to the point source itself (E) holding that to achieve goals of cwa epa is required to establish and enforce technologybased limitations on individual discharges into the countrys navigable waters from point sources

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: 1624. As to the second prong of the Lopez test, the Government emphasizes that Courts have determined that Section 2250(a) is a valid exercise of legislative power under the Commerce Clause, as “[t]he express language of SORNA dictates that violations under SORNA, for failing to register, require either that the person is convicted of a violation of a federal law or, if otherwise required to register under SORNA, travel in interstate or foreign commerce.” Government’s Omnibus Response, Docket No. 35, quoting United States v. Elliott, 2007 WL 4365599 at *3 (S.D.Fla., December 13, 2007); see also, United States v. Thomas, 534 F.Supp.2d 912, 918 (N.D.Iowa 2008)(“See-tion 2250 falls squarely within the second Lopez category.”); United States v. Mason, 510 F.Supp.2d 923, 932 (M.D.Fla.2007) (<HOLDING>). As explained by the Court, in United States 
 Holding statements: (A) holding if a plaintiffs claim is concerned with rights created within the contractual relationship it falls within the tucker act (B) holding that strict limitations set forth in section 1252e preclude judicial review of any constitutional or statutory claims related to the underlying expedited removal order (C) holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself (D) holding that section 2250a is facially constitutional because it falls within the second category set forth in lopez (E) holding that plea in bar may be based only on grounds set forth in statute

SOLUTION:
(D)