instruction:
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:
the interpretation of the statute has clearly been vested by a provision of law in the agency’s discretion. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(c), (l). If the agency has been clearly vested with interpretive authority, we generally defer to the agency’s interpretation, and may grant relief only if the agency’s interpretation is “irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.” Id. § 17A.19(10)(i). If the agency has not been clearly vested with discretion to interpret the statute, “we are free to substitute our judgment de novo for the agency’s interpretation and determine if the interpretation is erroneous.” Auen v. Alcoholic Beverages Div., 679 N.W.2d 586, 589-90 (Iowa 2004) (citing Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(e)). The legislature has delegated broad authority to 643 N.W.2d 205, 207 (Iowa 2002) (<HOLDING>). Section 147.76 clearly'vests the board of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding board cannot ignore the rules it adopts under the delegation of authority to prescribe rules for its governance and the governance of the university because such rules have the force and effect of statute (B) holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute (C) holding that director of police department does not have final policymaking authority in miamidade county despite having some discretionary authority (D) holding statute providing the director shall have the power and authority to prescribe all rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter necessary and advisable for its detailed administration and to effectuate its purposes vested authority in the department of revenue and finance to interpret section 4224520 (E) holding that congress had exceeded its authority by using its section five power under the fourteenth amendment to enact the statute
answer:
(D)


question:
between cases brought under the federal law and those brought under Maine law. While the First Circuit does make a distinction, it ultimately holds that the negligence per se doctrine of Pratico is strictly limited to cases brought under FELA, and it strongly implies that the doctrine will not be expanded. Elliott v. S.D. Warren Co., 134 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1998). 4 . Castine argues that the trooper testified at trial to matters that he had not previously indicated he would address, and therefore, it was unfairly surprised at trial. Generally, a continuance is the appropriate remedy when a party seeks to admit “surprise" evidence at trial. Because Castine did not seek a continuance, however, it may not now claim unfair surprise. See Pettitt v. Lizotte, 454 A.2d 329, 332-33 (Me.1982) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Because violation of a safety regulation 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the immigration judges denial of a continuance request did not constitute an abuse of discretion (B) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify (C) holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion (D) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify (E) holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing a defendants surprise fact witness to testify because the plaintiff did not request a continuance
answer:
(E)


question:
(2005). On September 13, 2006, the District Court held a resentencing hearing and imposed the same sentence as before. Section 1326(b)(2) increases the authorized prison sentence from a maximum of two years to a maximum of twenty years if the person’s deportation followed conviction for an aggravated felony. JimenezCohenete argues that, because his prior felony convictions increased the statutory maximum penalty for his reentry offense, those offenses should have been charged in the indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He contends that the Government’s failure to do so violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Put another way, Jimenez-Cohenete challenges the vitality of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>), in light of subsequent Supreme Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that facts regarding prior convictions need not be charged in an indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (B) holding that factors increasing a defendants sentence beyond the statutory maximum of the crime charged with the exception of prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (C) 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 (D) holding that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt (E) holding that any fact  that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond reasonable doubt
answer:

(A)