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]: Accordingly, the second Olano prong is satisfied: the error, both as to the absence of a jury determination on an essential element of the offense and the failure to include that element in the indictment, was indeed “plain.” c. Did the plain error affect Thomas’s substantial rights? An error affects a defendant’s “substantial rights” if it is “prejudicial” and it “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Gore, 154 F.3d at 47. “Though ‘prejudice’ is also required to show that an error is not ‘harmless,’ pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a), the important difference of plain error prejudice [in most cases] is that ‘[i]t is the defendant rather than the Government who bears the burden of pers , 2001), with United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 100-01 3d Cir. (2001) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), and United States v. Terry, 240 F.3d 65, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error (B) holding that constitutional error cannot be premised on error in a charge unless the error violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the fourteenth amendment (C) holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed (D) holding at the governments urging that a similar error was an error in both the trial and sentencing (E) holding that error in method by which interest from damages award was calculated was an error in substantive law not a clerical or mathematical error
[A]: (D)


[Q]: judgment action the Court should consider the following factors: (1) avoiding needless determination of state law issues; (2) discouraging litigants from filing declaratory actions as a means of forum shopping; and (3) avoiding duplica-tive litigation. Id. In addition, the Court should retain jurisdiction on a declaratory judgment action where it is necessary to avoid piecemeal litigation. Snodgrass v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 147 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir.1998). The Court has already concluded that § 616D.030 does not preclude Plaintiffs state law claims, therefore, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim would result in piecemeal litigation. Because a declaratory action is a procedural remedy, the Court grants leav 956 P.2d 117, 119-20 (1998) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding  616d030 barred employees actions where employees sued the state industrial insurance system alleging bad faith administration of their workers compensation claims (B) holding that the peculiar risk doctrine has no application to employees of independent contractors whose claims fall within the workers compensation system (C) holding  616d030 barred employees action where employee alleged the insurance carrier acted in bad faith in handling the claim (D) recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim (E) holding  616d030 did not preclude the plaintiff from bringing a tortious discharge action for filing a workers compensation claim because the statutory scheme applies only to the administration of the act
[A]: (A)


[Q]: withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n. 4 (noting that a failure to establish eligibility for asylum on the merits necessarily entails ineligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief). We deny Salazar-Hinca-pie’s petition for review. PETITION DENIED. 1 . In addition to Marta Dora Salazar-Hinca-pie, her husband, Oscar Antonio Yusty, and her children, Sara Yusty and Jose Ignacio Yusty, are also involved in this appeal. 2 . As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider several issues raised by Salazar-Hin-capie. As the BIA limited its ruling to the adverse credibility determination, her argument regarding internal relocation within Colombia is not properly before us. See Shkambi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 584 F.3d 1041, 1049 n. 5 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, we must decide the petition on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte (B) holding appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review bia order affirming ijs denial of asylum because alien did not file petition for review within 30 days of bia order as required by 8 usc  1252b1 (C) holding that we will not review portions of an ijs ruling that are not adopted by the bia (D) holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted (E) holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte
[A]:
(C)