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.

Example Input: grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action. Id. (emphasis added). A defendant must also “file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court, which shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.” Id. § 1446(d). The removal statutes are construed narrowly. Pritchett v. Off its, including the District of Kansas, have also followed this approach. See, e.g., Berbig v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Inc., 568 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1039 n. 9 (D.Minn.2008) (stating that “a failure to comply with the requirements of [Section 1446(a) ] ordinarily is not grounds to deny removal”); Riggs v. Fling Irrigation, Inc., 535 F.Supp.2d 572, 579 (W.D.N.C.2008) (<HOLDING>); Yellow, 406 F.Supp.2d at 1215; In re Methyl 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that under alabama law the law of the forum applies to procedural matters and that in most instances the statute of limitations is considered to be a procedural rule (B) recognizing that the procedural defect could be corrected through a reinstatement of the termination proceedings (C) holding that if the states criminal complaint against defendant had a jurisdictional defect the prosecution had the right to attempt to correct the defect and a motion to dismiss is one method of doing this (D) holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect (E) holding while there may be some case law to support plaintiffs argument the majority approach is that the failure to attach process defect is merely procedural and that this particular procedural defect may be cured
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: in original). With the possible exception of his claim that he was not permitted to testify, Man-giardi has not satisfied either prong of the Strickland test. Because each of Mangiardi’s claims relating to the proceedings is meritless, appellate counsel was not unreasonable for any failure to raise any of them on direct appeal. See Williams, 166 F.Supp.2d at 305 (finding that where each of the claims raised in the defendant’s § 2255 motion was meritless, appellate counsel was not deficient for failing to raise them on direct appeal). The same reasoning applies to appellate counsel’s failure to raise Man-giardi’s claims for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See id., James v. Superintendent of SCI Huntington, No. CIV.A. 97-2864, 2000 WL 5196, at *3 (E.D.Pa. January 4, 2000) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as discussed above, claims for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim (B) holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel (C) recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel (D) holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate (E) holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: 462 F.Sd 237 (3d Cir.2006), for support. We review the District Court’s interpretation of its legal authority at sentencing de novo. United States v. Pojilenko, 416 F.3d 243, 246 (3d Cir.2005). We note, at the outset, that the District Court imposed a sentence below the Advisory Guidelines, albeit for reasons other than the crack/powder cbcaine differential. The recerd demonstrates the District Court clearly understood the mandate of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and recognized its discretion with respect to the guidelines. The District Court properly considered' and then declined Edge’s request to vary from the guidelines based on the differential. See Kimbrough v. United States, 522 U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 563-65, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Gunter, 462 F.3d at 249 (“[T]he District 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the cocaine guidelines  are advisory only (B) holding that even though the guidelines are advisory a district court must accurately calculate and consult the defendants guidelines range (C) recognizing that under the booker remedial regime  the guidelines are no longer mandatory but are only advisory (D) holding that the pennsylvania sentencing guidelines are purely advisory in nature (E) recognizing only that the guidelines must be advisory not that judges may find no facts
Example Output:
(A)