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:
February 8, 2011 probation extension order failed to extend his probation period because the October 26, 2005 restitution order was improperly delegated to the probation officer, rather than determined by the circuit court as required by Code § 19.2-305.1(D), thus any subsequent order is invalid. In relevant part, Code § 19.2-305.1(D) states that “[a]t the time of sentencing, the court shall determine the amount to be repaid by the defendant and the terms and conditions thereof.” The amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant is within the sole province of the circuit court to determine and that determination may not be delegated to another department of government. See Code § 19.2-305.2; see also McCullough v. Commonwealth, 38 Va.App. 811, 815, 568 S.E.2d 449, 451 (2002) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the circuit court’s October 26, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the sentencing judge could consider the defendants subsequent arrest even though the charges were dismissed during sentencing (B) holding part of the sentencing phase of trial the restitution amount is determined following conviction and is a matter resting within the sole province of the sentencing judge (C) holding that the hearsay rule is not suspended in the sentencing phase (D) holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount (E) holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses
answer:
(B)


question:
Corpus Christi 1977, no writ); Hagemeister v. Vanity Fair Properties, 508 S.W.2d 879, 881 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1973, writ dism’d). Thus, collateral estoppel dictates that venue of any subsequent suit involving the same subject matter and the same parties as the initial suit be governed by the venue determination in the initial suit. See Orozco, 681 S.W.2d at 245-46; Pinney, 558 S.W.2d at 36. First, Miller II involves the same parties as the Windsor suit. Both State & County and Windsor were parties to the Windsor suit. Although Ledbetter and Curtiss were not named in the Windsor suit, as officers of State & County, they were in privity with a party; thus, collateral estoppel would apply to them as well. Cf. Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 845 S.W.2d 794, 800 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Youell & Cos. v. Getty 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant in second suit was in privity for res judicata purposes because his interests were aligned with those of defendant in first suit which concerned same facts (B) holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined (C) holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings (D) holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings (E) holding res judicata also applies to those in privity with parties
answer:
(E)


question:
(Rule 60(b) motion); Mehdipour v. Snowden, 162 F.3d 1173, 1998 WL 777397 (10th Cir. Nov.4, 1998) (unpublished op.) (motion to enjoin); Mehdipour v. City of Oklahoma City, 161 F.3d 18, 1998 WL 694527 (10th Cir. Oct.6, 1998) (unpublished op.) (Rule 60(b) motion); Mehdipour v. Oklahoma County Sheriff, 161 F.3d 18, 1998 WL 614448 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 1998) (unpublished op.) (28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition); Mehdipour v. City of Oklahoma City, 145 F.3d 1346, 1998 WL 199648 (10th Cir. April 24, 1998) (unpublished op.) (Rules 59(e) and 60(b) motions); Mehdipour v. City of Oklahoma City, 131 F.3d 152, 1997 WL 748651 (10th Cir. Dec.3, 1997) (unpublished op.) (civil rights action). 2 . See, e.g., District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts (B) holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this court (C) holding federal district courts do not have jurisdiction  over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state courts action was unconstitutional review of those decisions may be had only in this united states supreme court (D) holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts (E) holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case
answer:

(C)