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: the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).” Id., app. note 1(A). In November 2007, the Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 706, which reduced the base offense level for crack cocaine offenses under § 2Dl.l(c) by two levels. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 706 (Nov. 1, 2007). The Commission later made the amendment retroactively applicable. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 713 (Supp. May 1, 2008). As indicated, Jefferson sought to have his sentence reduced as result of those amendments. However, they do not apply here because Jefferson was sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence required by statute. See United States v. Doe, 564 F.3d 305, 311-12 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Because the District Court did not abuse its 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the operative provision in determining the defendants applicable sentencing range is the statutory minimum  not the crack cocaine guideline and that the defendants were still subject to the mandatory minimum upon which their substantial assistance departures  and thus them ultimate sentences  were based (B) holding that a defendant whose original sentence was based upon the careeroffender guideline and not  2d11 could not receive a sentence reduction based on amendment 706 because it did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range (C) holding that while amendment 706 was applicable to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline (D) holding that amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range where the defendants received statutory mandatory minimum sentences and thus the defendants were not eligible for relief under  3582 (E) holding that while amendment 706 was applica ble to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: Anderson claims that the trial court findings do not justify the decision to “increase” his child support on August 1, 1987. In other words, appellant construes the trial court’s 1987 decision as a modification downward to $250 followed by a modification upward to $400. This is a misconstruction of the trial court’s order. As the majority opinion indicates, the court did not make an upward modification. It does not follow, however, that the trial court could act without making findings on appellant’s ability to pay child support. Without findings on appellant’s ability to pay, or another indication that the trial court considered the facts as to appellant’s ability to pay, the law commands us to remand the case rather than to affirm. Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859, 864-65 (Minn.1986) (<HOLDING>). The dictates of Moylan should be applied. The 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court has jurisdiction to reconsider new trial order as long as case is pending (B) holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous (C) holding that a defendants attorney can waive the defendants sixth amendment confrontation right so long as the defendant does not dissent from his attorneys decision and so long as it can be said that the attorneys decision was a legitimate trial tactic or part of a prudent trial strategy (D) holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant (E) holding it improper to independently review the record to find support for a trial courts decision so long as it is unclear whether the trial court considered statutory factors

SOLUTION: (E)

PROBLEM: a wrongdoer is nevertheless responsible for its own attorney’s fees. See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Fedders Air Conditioning, USA Inc., 821 F.Supp. 50, 56 (D.Mass.1993). Haley’s position has a modicum of support to the extent that depriving it of indemnification elevates formality above substance because the same claim brought under a different procedural posture might be indemnifiable. For instance, had Haley been impleaded not as a direct defendant but rather as a third-party defendant in a claim brought by defendant Tnemec, alleging, for example, that Haley made negligent misrepresentations to Tnemec which then caused it to provide improper materials to Caldwell, Haley would arguably be entitled to indemnification. Cf. O’Gee v. Dobbs Houses, Inc., 570 F.2d 1084, 1090 (2d Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). That theoretical possibility is, however, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party which would have been indemnified if sued as a crossclaimant should be indemnified when brought into the case as a thirdparty defendant (B) holding that a subrogation claim required the parties to try the case as a casewithinacase to determine if the insured would have been liable to thirdparty plaintiff (C) holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication (D) holding that the district court erred in summarily dismissing a  1983 complaint that should have been brought as a habeas petition (E) holding that under the eaja a prevailing party with an unconditional right to be indemnified for his legal expenses by a solvent third party had not incurred attorneys fees

SOLUTION:
(A)