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.

Input: Consider Input: of the property. See C.R.E. 602; C.R.E. 701. However, there is no evidence in the record which establishes that Pomeranz ever paid a bill relating to the maintenance of the property or that he was personally responsible for any aspect of the maintenance because McDonald’s had been responsible for the payments for the past fifteen years. Because no adequate evidentiary foundation was laid for Pomeranz’s estimation of maintenance expenses on the property, it is impossible, absent pure speculation, to ascertain from the record how Pomeranz obtained the $4,800 estimation. The trial court's factual findings relating to future maintenance expenses are not sustained by either competent or adequate evidence and are therefore clearly erroneous. See Anderson, 170 Colo. at 13, 458 P.2d at 758 (<HOLDING>). The evidence presented by the petitioners on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact (B) holding that a reviewing court will only presume that the trial court made implicit factual findings when such findings were necessary to its ultimate conclusion (C) holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings (D) holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence (E) holding that where the original drug quantity determination is not specific enough for the district court to determine whether it has the authority to reduce a defendants sentence under  3582c2 that court may make new findings of fact that are supported by the record and are not inconsistent with the findings made in the original sentencing proceedings

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. at 2069. Capshaw cannot establish that his attorney’s performance was deficient for failing to object to the admission of cell phone records. His trial counsel would not have prevailed on such an objection under the governing law, and thus counsel’s performance was not deficient for failing to object. It is undisputed that the government obtained a court order, under 18 U.S.C. § 2703, requiring Sprint Nextel to produce the cell phone records of Capshaw and three other people to show calls between them during the period of the murder-for-hire plot. Obtaining those telephone rec ords through a § 2703 court order did not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Smith v. Mainland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2582, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Capshaw had no reasonable expectation of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because facts made known to magistrate did not establish at time warrant was issued the required nexus between the contraband to be seized which was mailed to defendants post office box and defendants home (B) holding that search warrant was constitutionally defective because it did not require notice (C) holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant (D) holding that telephone company records of calls made from a defendants home did not require the government to seek a search warrant (E) holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: V. Conclusion We reverse the trial court’s judgment denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and the Aldermen and Mayor’s motion for summary judgment as to Elizabeth’s whis-tleblower claims. We render judgment that the City, Aldermen, and Mayor are immune from suit on Elizabeth’s whistle-blower claims. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. 1 . Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 554.001-.010 (Vernon 1994 & Supp.2001). 2 . City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 n. 1 (Tex.1993); see also City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653-54 (Tex.1994); Putthoff v. Ancrum, 934 S.W.2d 164, 168 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1996, writ denied). 3 . City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara, 904 S.W.2d 655, 656 (Tex.1995); Putthoff, 934 S.W.2d at 174 n. 2. Compare Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d at 812 (<HOLDING>). 4 . Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that city could not appeal based on sovereign rather than official immunity under section 510145 (B) holding that the sovereign immunity defense may be raised for the first time on appeal (C) holding that dismissal pursuant to a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity is with prejudice (D) holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity (E) holding that plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official


Output: (A)