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.

the conversations as they occurred. Further, this officer testified that after speaking with Diana Buchanan during her arrest, he was “convinced” that the voice on the tape was Diana Buchanan’s. Although the district court did not elicit testimony as to all the Biggins elements, the officer sponsoring the recording gave adequate testimony to support the recording’s reliability. All the voices were identified, and there was no intimation that the tape had been altered. Further, the testifying officer explained how the recording was made, and testified as to its accuracy. Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the tape as an accurate reproduction of relevant conversations. See United States v. Lance, 853 F.2d 1177, 1181-82 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). C Diana Buchanan next argues that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the  2d11b1 enhancement was proper where a firearm and drugrelated items were found in the defendants residence where he had also engaged in conspiratorial conversations (B) holding recordings properly authenticated where law enforcement agents who participated in the taped conversations testified that according to their memories the audio and video tapes contained accurate recordings of the conversations that occurred (C) holding that foreign bank documents found inside a persons home were properly authenticated (D) holding that the plaintiffs fourteenth amendment substantive due process claim was foreclosed because the fourth amendment provided protection for their claim that law enforcement officers participated in an unlawful seizure of their mobile home (E) holding that government met its burden with evidence that agents found a firearm and other drugrelated items in the defendants house where defendant engaged in conspiratorial conversations
(B)

a sergeant entered the house with her. 2 . Harris testified that he opened the door for the police: "I saw them coming, so I just opened the door.” However, Officer Shepard testified that she knocked on the door and that after no one answered she entered the house through the door, which was unlocked. 3 . We decline to reach the question whether the warrantless entry and the search by the police officers were justified by exigent circumstances. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)(rejecting a "murder scene exception” created by the Supreme Court of Arizona to the requirement of obtaining a warrant). See also Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17, 22, 105 S.Ct. 409, 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984)(applying Mincey); Ex parte Usrey, 527 So.2d 732 (Ala.1987) (<HOLDING>); A.A.G. v. State, 668 So.2d 122, 128 
 Holding statements: (A) holding no liability existed under the circumstances (B) holding that once the scene was secure exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant (C) holding that exigent circumstances were created by dissipation of bloodalcohol content in time needed to obtain a warrant (D) holding that exigent circumstances were present because evidence of bloodalcohol content could disappear during the time necessary to obtain a warrant (E) recognizing that  exigent circumstances do not excuse the failure to secure a warrant when those circumstances are created by government officials who unreasonably and deliberately delay or avoid obtaining the warrant
(B)

The latter case is L-1283. There Judge Brown’s order of dismissal referred to the prior opinion of Judge Stanley, saying that no new legal or factual grounds were presented, and also expressed his view against the retro-activity of O’Callahan. Our record initially covered only the latter case, but we have since caused a supplementary record of the pertinent portions of the first proceeding to he incorporated in view of the appeal in both cases. Opportunity was afforded for additional memoranda addressing the supplemental record, but the parties did not find this necessary. The record now covers all the proceedings in both cases except a hearing transcript in the former case. Chief Judge Stanley’s opinion indicates that there were no disputed f 22, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (<HOLDING>) ; Smith v. Crouse, Warden, 378 U.S. 584, 84 
 Holding statements: (A) holding retroactive application (B) holding retroactive the rule that persons with conscientious or religious scruples against capital punishment cannot be excluded from juries (C) holding that the act is retroactive (D) holding no retroactive application (E) holding that the act is not retroactive

(B)