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:
did not arise out of her employment, given that she was no longer employed at Riverside when she was injured. Respondents counter that, for purposes of the NIIA, the employment relationship continues for a reasonable amount of time after an employee quits or is fired, so that Fanders was still considered an employee when she was injured, and thus, the NILA applied and was Fanders’ sole remedy. The NIIA only covers injuries that arise out of and in the course of the injured claimant’s employment. NRS 616C. 150(1). An in jury occurs within the course of employment when there is a causal connection between the injury and the nature of the work or the workplace. Wood, 121 Nev. at 733, 121 P.3d at 1032; Rio Suite Hotel & Casino v. Gorsky, 113 Nev. 600, 604, 939 P.2d 1043, 1046 (1997) (<HOLDING>); see also MGM Mirage v. Cotton, 121 Nev. 396, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that an injury arises out of the employment relationship if it can be traced to the nature of employment or the workplace environment (B) holding employees under age discrimination in employment acts adea parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship (C) holding that it is the claimants burden to show that the injury was the result of an accident that not only arose in the course of the employment but that it also grew out of or resulted from the employment (D) holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment (E) holding that language in employee handbook stating that it was not to be considered as creating terms and conditions of an employment contract and that the employment relationship was employment atwill  was sufficiently explicit to preclude the creation of implied contractual obligations as a matter of law
answer:
(A)


question:
v. Allen, 615 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir.2010) (emphasizing the parsimonious nature of an effective EA) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)). The DOE has more than met its burden here. Accordingly, we find that the DOE’s discussion of the 2005 anthrax shipping incident in the DREA and the FREA satisfies NEPA. b. The “Restricted” Experiments We do not reach the issue of whether the DOE’s decision not to include information about “restricted” experiments in the FREA was arbitrary or capricious because the district court properly found that this argument was waived. Here, Tri-Valley CAREs did not address the district court’s ruling that the argument was deemed waived in its opening appellate bricf. Thus, the issue is not properly before us. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Claims not made in an opening brief in a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that arguments not raised by a party in its open ing brief are deemed waived (B) holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived (C) holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived (D) holding that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived (E) holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived
answer:
(A)


question:
CURIAM. Carl Headley Chambers appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Chambers v. Brooks, No. CA-01-1389-AM (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 11, 2001; entered Oct. 12, 2001); see also United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 201-02 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that apprendi does not apply to a judges exercise of sentencing discretion within a statutory range so long as a defendants sentence is not set beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statute (B) holding that almendareztorres remains binding despite apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 (C) holding that apprendi does not apply to judges exercise of sentencing discretion within statutory range so long as defendants sentence is not set beyond maximum term specified in substantive statute (D) holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 does not apply to a judges exercise of discretion within a statutory range so long as a defendants sentence is not set beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statute (E) holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 was not violated where the sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum
answer:

(D)