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.

Q: the peremptory strike. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995). In this case, we cannot say that the Florida state court’s judgment was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, specifically the Supreme Court’s holding in Bat-son. As for the State’s strike of the first black prospective juror, the interaction between the parties and the state court (where, upon being challenged, the State revealed that it wished to strike this juror because two prosecutors had seen her sleeping during the jury selection process, and the trial court then moved onto the next juror) was adequate under Batson, so trial counsel was not ineffective in that respect. See Hightower v. Terry, 459 F.3d 1067, 1072 n. 9 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, even assuming that Sneed’s counsel 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing this purpose albeit implicitly (B) recognizing that a trial judge can implicitly find a prosecutors proffered reasons credible (C) holding that the trial judge cannot simply rjubber stamp  a prosecutors nonracial explanation no matter how whimsical or fanciful  but in order to permit a questioned peremptory challenge  must conclude that the proffered reasons are first neutral and reasonable and second not a pretext (D) holding that findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate substantial and credible evidence (E) holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors

A: (B)
****
Q: as here, the recalcitrant witness is at liberty pending appeal. In so holding, we join all of the circuits which have squarely addressed the issue. See In re Grand Jury Matter, 906 F.2d 78, 82-83 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied sub nom. Backiel v. United States, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 509, 112 L.Ed.2d 521 (1990); In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 189 (D.C.Cir.1987); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 785 F.2d 629, 631 n. 4 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Johnson, 736 F.2d 358, 361-62 n. 5 (6th Cir.1984); In re Witness Before Special October 1981 Grand Jury, 722 F.2d 349, 353 (7th Cir.1983); In re Rosahn, 671 F.2d 690, 694 (2d Cir.1982); Brown v. United States, 465 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir.1972). But see In re Berry, 521 F.2d 179 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 928, 96 S.Ct. 276, 46 L.Ed.2d 256 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The foregoing cases have noted that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the deadmans statute should not be extended by judicial construction to cases not clearly within its terms (B) recognizing that denying outofeell exercise for extended periods may constitute cruel and unusual punishment (C) holding that it may not (D) holding that the statutes 30 day provision is mandatory and may not be extended and dicta that it may not be extended by release from incarceration (E) holding that statutory habeas jurisdiction extended to guantanamo

A: (D)
****
Q: ¶ 522.1 l[6][d] ("[T]he definition refers to a VCR even though many debtors had replaced this item with a DVD player by the time the definition was enacted in 2005. Given the impracticality of an exclusive list of items in a statutory provision that will inevitably become obsolete if not amended, courts may feel compelled to expand the list to include reasonable substitutes for the listed items.”). 7 . The Illustrated Oxford English Dictionary 47 (1988); see also Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 67 (2d coll, ed 1980) (defining “appliance” as "a device or machine for performing a specific task, esp. one that is worked mechanically or by electricity (stoves, irons, etc. are household appliances).”). 8 . See In re Wiford, 105 B.R. 992, 1002 (Bankr. N.D.Okla.1989) (<HOLDING>); In re Irwin, 232 B.R. 151, 153-54 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a lawn mower seems to fit reasonably well within the common meaning of the terms household good and appliances  it is a large appliance but not all that different from eg a vacuum cleaner (B) holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law (C) holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 (D) holding that the legislature intends different meanings when it uses different terms in a statute (E) holding that ambiguity exists if the meaning of contractual terms cannot be deciphered from reading the entire instrument or if the terms are reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation

A:
(A)
****