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.

Dubé, who held a hearing on the summary judgment motions on December 11, 2003. On January 14, 2004, Judge Dubé issued his R & R, which recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that Defendant’s Motion be denied, thereby reversing the decision of the Appeals Council. Having received objections from both parties, the R & R is now ripe for consideration by this Court. Analysis The issues appealed from the Appeals Council are purely questions of law. Although a more restrictive standard of review applies if an appeal of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is based on that decision’s factual findings, no presumption of validity attaches to the Commissioner’s conclusions of law. See Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Therefore; the Court must conduct its own 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although the district court was not required to discuss each of the factors on the record a decision to dismiss stands a better chance on appeal if the appellate court has the benefit of the district courts reasoning (B) holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted (C) holding the courts scope of review is  limited to determining whether the commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the commissioners findings of fact  (D) recognizing that when reviewing for clear error we usually must reverse if the district court applied incorrect legal standards to reach its findings (E) holding the district court can reverse the commissioners decision based on her failure to apply the correct law or to provide the reviewing court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal analysis has been conducted
(E)

511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In Landgraf, the Court noted that a statute only truly operates retroactively if applying it would “impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Id. 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also RTC v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 30 F.3d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir.1994)(analyzing retroactivity of lease repudiation damage limitation provision of FIRREA). Thus, like other courts that have analyzed similar FIRREA provisions, we must address prior banking law to determine whether application of the damage limitation provisions of § 1821(e)(3) would have the retroactive effect defined in Landgraf. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit, 30 F.3d at 1388 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that, in the Crafts’ case, it 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is not retroactive (B) holding that firreas damage limitations for repudiation of leases worked no substantive change in the law and thus their application was not retroactive (C) holding retroactive application (D) holding no retroactive application (E) recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary
(B)

be brought by means of a motion for post-conviction relief. In doing so, the state acknowledges the court departed from the essential requirements of law and requests we reverse the portion of the appealed order which dismissed the mandamus petition. Massey has exhausted his administrative remedies with the DOC. He correctly sought mandamus relief in the circuit court. See Taylor v. State, 780 So.2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(affirming trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief motion filed to challenge DOC’s reduction of his gain time because it had to first be entertained in the DOC; if defendant was not satisfied with the DOC’s ruling, then he could file a petition for writ of mandamus with the appropriate circuit court); see also Bedford v. State, 775 So.2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(<HOLDING>). We, therefore, quash the order and remand for 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that this court may issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to compel the doc to comply with a district court order directing the doc to grant a prisoner credit for time spent in presentence confinement (B) holding that a mandamus petition rather than motion for postconviction relief was appropriate remedy to have doc honor amount of jail credit awarded in each of defendants sentences (C) holding that circuit court should have treated the habeas petition as a motion for postconviction relief (D) holding that a claim is proeedurally barred where it was not raised in the defendants motion for postconviction relief (E) holding statute of limitations for filing petition for postconviction relief not tolled by general savings statute tolling limited to reasons enumerated in state postconviction relief act

(B)