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.

Input: Consider Input: pre-trial release on April 12, 1985. Although this appeal has received expedited review, a decision has not yet been rendered by the Second Circuit. Thus a total of only fifty-six (56) non-excludable days have elapsed since Leon was arrested and detained (assuming that the filing of Elba Rodriguez’s omnibus motion stopped the clock as to all the co-defendants). DISCUSSION Leon’s first argument is based upon the interpretation of Section 3164(b) itself, which provides that, “[t]he periods of delay enumerated in Section 3161(h) are excluded in computing the time limitations specified in this section.” Leon argues that this sent C.Cir.1976) and United States v. Mejias, 417 F.Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd. on other grounds, sub nom., United States v. Martinez, 538 F.2d 921 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). According to the House Report accompanying 
 Holding statements: (A) holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases (B) holding that a court examining if a law should be applied retroactively should consider whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment (C) holding that the first amendment definition should be applied by analogy in the franks setting (D) holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk (E) holding that the exclusions should be applied

Output: (E)


Input: Consider Input: 2505. III. DISCUSSION A. No Private Cause of Action Under IGRA As an initial matter, the court dismisses all of plaintiffs claims against all defendants brought pursuant to alleged violations of IGRA. The court, following the majority of courts who have decided the issue, finds that IGRA provides no private right of action against the Tribe, the State, the federal government or any official or agency thereof. See, e.g., Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 63 F.3d 1030, 1049 (11th Cir.1995)(finding plaintiff failed to state a claim against tribe for alleged failure to comply with IGRA’s licensing requirements because no implied cause of action in IGRA); American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull, 146 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1053 (D.Ariz.2001)(citing 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A))(<HOLDING>); Jimi Dev. Corp. v. Ute Mountain Ute Indian 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that no private right of action exists (B) holding that there is no private right of action for any person under  13d (C) holding that the scope of section 541 is broad and includes all kinds of property including causes of action (D) recognizing private right of action (E) holding only three kinds of entities are expressly given causes of action under igraindian tribes states and the united statesand there is no implied private right to enforce igra

Output: (E)


Input: Consider Input: 1999, she did receive that review in November, after Compuware took measures to correct the lapse. Although the review noted several performance deficiencies, Compuware nonetheless awarded Ms. Thomas a 4% increase, made retroactive to September when the salary review should have been completed. And, although Ms. Thomas complains that the amount of the salary increase was less than other employees received, she has presented no evidence that the increase was outside the range for which she was eligible. Neither a late but retroactive pay raise, nor a pay raise within the applicable range but less than the employee subjectively believes she deserved, constitutes a “materially adverse employment action.” See Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 886-87 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). We note, for the record, that in White v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a lateral transfer without a loss in benefits does not constitute an adverse employment action (B) holding that termination is an adverse employment action (C) holding that a materially adverse action is of the magnitude of a termination of employment or a decrease in salary or a material loss in benefits (D) holding that in order to constitute a materially adverse change in the terms of plaintiffs employment a transfer must include either diminished responsibilities a demotion evidenced by a change in salary title or benefits or other indices unique to the particular situation (E) holding that a negative criticism or performance evaluation unaccompanied by a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment does not constitute adverse employment action


Output: (C)