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.

Ex Input:
Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204, 207-08 (2d Cir.2007); see also United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122, 128 (2d Cir.2008). In fact we identify no error in this case, plain or otherwise, because the district court’s statement that it had “look[ed] at the relevant conduct, what happened with the fellow you got $250,000 from,” and its statement that it had reviewed the Pre-sentence Report (“PSR”) and “adopt[ed] the factual information that’s contained” therein, are reasonably construed as an explicit adoption of the PSR’s detailed explanation for why Patterson’s conduct causing a $250,000 loss to a California victim was fraudulent and qualified as relevant to the crime of conviction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § IB 1.3(a)(2). See generally United States v. Carter, 489 F.3d 528, 539 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). We further conclude that the adopted PSR 
 Holding statements: (A) holding district courts adoption of the presentence report constitutes sufficient findings (B) holding that factual findings set forth in the psi not objected to by a defendant are deemed admitted (C) holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report (D) holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient (E) holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous

Ex Output:
(C)


Ex Input:
arrest for a misdemeanor is permitted only when one of the statutory exceptions is met. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-207© (2008). 5 . "According to one study, approximately 30% of police shootings occurred when a 0 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding that the duration of the stop was unreasonably extended where the officer admitted that, for thirteen minutes of the sixteen minute stop, he asked the defendant questions that were unrelated to the traffic violation); Loper v. State, 8 A.3d 1169, 1172— 73 (Del.2010) (concluding that the stop, during which the officer asked the defendant for identification and ran a background check, “did not exceed the permissible scope of a routine traffic stop”); Bucalo v. Commonwealth, No. 2010-CA-000176-MR, 2012 WL 246245, at *5-7 (Ky.Ct.App. Jan. 27, 2012) (<HOLDING>); State v. Mason, 173 Md.App. 414, 919 A.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a traffic stop which lasted 105 minutes from the time of the initial stop until the defendant was arrested on drugrelated charges was unreasonable because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for purposes of conducting a drug dog sniff because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was engaged in drugrelated activity (B) holding circumstances supporting reasonable suspicion to make a stop included that the defendant was on a comer on which recent multiple drugrelated arrests had been made (C) holding that reasonable suspicion is required to prolong a traffic stop after the purpose for which the investigatory stop was instituted has been accomplished (D) holding that an officer does not need reasonable articulable suspicion of drugrelated criminal activity prior to subjecting defendants car to a dog sniff subsequent to a lawful traffic stop (E) holding duration of stop was reasonable as it lasted under thirty minutes

Ex Output:
(A)


Ex Input:
the matter as a “disbarment” proceeding in its motion for summary judgment. Further, the October 19, 2001 order granting summary judgment did not determine whether disbarment was the appropriate remedy for Wightman-Cervantes’ violations of the disciplinary rules. That issue was scheduled for a separate hearing, which the judgment of disbarment reflects occurred on January 11, 2002. Wightman-Cervantes has made no claim that he did not have fair notice of the January 11, 2002 hearing. Wightman-Cervantes does not appear to have moved for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing, nor did he prosecute his appeal therefrom. In light of all of those circumstances, we hold that he was not deprived of due process under the applicable federal standard. See Smith, 123 F.Supp.2d at 357 (<HOLDING>). IV We turn next to Wightman-Cervantes’ 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice (B) holding basic elements of due process are notice and a right to be heard (C) holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard (D) holding that attorney received due process where circuit court afforded attorney notice and opportunity to be heard before suspending him and later disbarring him (E) holding that where appellant was put on notice of disciplinary charges against him and was afforded opportunity to respond to boards recommendation demands of due process were satisfied

Ex Output:

(D)