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: any records it has linking Gordon, Langford, or Ford to its investigation into the four murders, or it must follow the normal practice in FOIA cases of identifying the records it has withheld and stating its reasons for doing so.” Id. at 1182. Although the plaintiff maintains a claim of innocence, unlike in Roth, any public interest in knowing whether the defendant withholds information that could corroborate that claim does not outweigh the privacy interests at stake. c. Balancing the Privacy and Public Interests If there is a privacy interest in the requested materials and no public interest in disclosure, “[w]e need rcement agents. However, individuals mentioned in law enforcement files also have a recognized privacy interest. See Spirko v. USPS, 147 F.3d 992, 999 (D.C.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). And plaintiff has failed to show how the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the privacy interests of the employee police officers did not exceed the publics right to know (B) recognizing the strong privacy interests of the suspects and law enforcement officers identified in the withheld documents (C) holding that exemption 7c protects the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records whether they be investigators suspects witnesses or informants and their names are generally exempt from disclosure (D) recognizing the privacy interests when requested documents neither confirm nor refute the plaintiffs allegations of government misconduct (E) holding that exemption 7c protects the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records whether they be investigators suspects witnesses or informants and their names are generally exempt from disclosure  

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: this case was scheduled for a date approximately six months after the permanent injunction had expired. The procedural posture of this case is comparable to that of Madonna, in which the plaintiffs challenged their confinements while awaiting a hearing to determine whether they should be committed to mental institutions. 295 N.W.2d at 358. The plaintiffs filed petitions for habeas corpus during their pre-hearing confinements, which lasted only a matter of weeks, but the petitions were not adjudicated before their pre-hearing confinements ended. Id. at 358-59. Approximately two and one-half years later, the supreme court held that the case was not moot, reasoning that “some method of review must exist.” Id. at 361; see also Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 208 n. 2 (Minn.2001) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187, 188 n. 1, 210 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired (B) holding that district court may award money due under a statute even though time for disbursement had expired (C) holding that challenge to oneyear residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since satisfied requirement (D) holding expired child abuse protective order not moot because of possible effect on future custody determinations (E) holding that a first amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot

Output: (A)


Input: Consider Input: is a taking, plaintiff has not alleged a property interest subject to a constitutional taking claim nor has plaintiff alleged any cognizable taking. Moreover, the Federal Circuit has explained that the Court of Federal Claims “does not have general equity jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief.” Shemonsky v. United States, 215 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.1999) (upholding decision of the Court of Federal Claims that the courts jurisdiction did not extend to injunctive or declaratory relief); see also Bank of Guam v. United States, 578 F.3d 1318, 1331 (Fed.Cir.) reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1006, 130 S.Ct. 3468, 177 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2010); Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2003); Choate v. United States, 60 F.3d 840 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). As stated by the Federal Circuit: The Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to grant nonmonetary relief in connection with contractor claims including claims requesting an interpretation of contract terms (B) holding that the tucker act does not provide independent jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief in contractual dispute cases (C) holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law (D) holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over tax claims for declaratory or equitable relief (E) holding that the tucker act does not provide a means by which the court of federal claims may grant injunctive or declaratory relief where the suit does not involve a preaward protest or the application of section 7428 of the internal revenue code


Output: (E)