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 Q]: and systematic,” even when the cause of action has no relation to those contacts. LSI Indus. Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc., 232 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2000) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)). The district court correctly found that it lacked general jurisdiction over Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer has very limited contacts with California. Oppenheimer has shipped unspecified items to the defendant Spectrum Effects, Inc. of California. However, the record gives no indication of the context and significance of these shipments for Oppenheimer’s business. Appellants failed to show that these acts amount to continuous and systematic contacts with California. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 418, 104 S.Ct. 1868 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Oppenheimer has exhibited 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant (B) holding that purchases even if occurring at regular intervals were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation (C) holding that business visits and purchases within a forum even if occurring at regular intervals are not enough to support general jurisdiction over a defendant (D) holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction (E) holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: in their Constitution, or from the Congress that the Constitution had empowered. We made a similar point in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S., at 416, where we considered a suit against a State in another State’s courts: “This [traditional] explanation [of sovereign immunity] adequately supports the conclusion that no sovereign may be sued in its own courts without its consent, but it affords no support for a claim of immunity in another sovereign’s courts. Such a claim necessarily implicates the power and authority of a second sovereign; its source must be found either in an agreement, express or implied, between the two sovereigns, or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity.” Cf. United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 646 (1892) (<HOLDING>). Subjecting States to federal jurisdiction in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an action cannot be maintained under young in unique circumstances where the suit against the state officer affects an essential attribute of state sovereignty in a manner that the action must be understood as one against the state (B) holding a states regulation of wyoming national guard was insufficient to implicate a special sovereignty interest because of the dual federal and state nature of national guard service (C) recognizing that a suit by the national government against a state does no violence to the inherent nature of sovereignty (D) holding the governors emergency powers to take private property for the public benefit was a special sovereignty interest but the relief requested was not so much of a divestiture of the states sovereignty to render the suit as one against the state itself (E) holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: present case is controlled by Jordan. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for the court of appeals to conduct a harm analysis. 1 . Before voir dire, appellant filed his election for the jury to assess punishment in the event of conviction and his sworn application for community supervision from the jury in which appellant swore that he had never before been convicted of a felony in the State of Texas or any other state. 2 . There is no evidence in the record regarding whether appellant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. 3 . See Milburn v. State, No. 07-04-0100-CR, 2005 WL 1412055, at *1, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 4679, *2 (Tex.App.-Amarillo June 16, 2005) (not designated for publication). 4 . 77 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). 5 . TexCode Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 4(e). 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a conviction is deemed final on the date of sentencing when there is no evidence that notice of appeal was filed (B) holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction (C) holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court (D) holding that prisoners notice of appeal deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court (E) holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court
[EX A]:
(A)