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: sophisticated consumer” might well reach the same conclusion. In sum, particularly at this early stage, defendants cannot establish as a matter of law that Santander is a creditor exempt from the FDCPA. Thus, the motion to dismiss should be denied. TCPA Claims Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under the TCPA based on an exception contained in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2), which excepts calls to a residential line when made pursuant to an “established business relationship.” It is difficult to imagine how that exemption would apply to Letricia Hamlett, who was not a signatory to the loan, but in fairness there is at least one case that supports this odd interpretation of the law. See Santino v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., No. 09-CV-982, 2011 WL 754874, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2011) (<HOLDING>); but see Watson v. NCO Group, Inc., 462 
 Holding statements: (A) holding  2254 applies to administrative proceedings (B) holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action (C) holding exemption applies to nondebtor (D) holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action (E) holding that  1447c applies to counsel

Output: (C)


Input: Consider Input: any evidence that Qualex’s action had any reason to perceive plaintiff as being disabled, any claim that the withdrawal of the offer of employment was motivated by such a perception is purely speculative. As such, plaintiffs claim that defendant Qualex violated the ADA by withdrawing its offer of employment fails as a matter of law. See Hoffman at 1 (“Unsupported speculation does not satisfy a party’s burden to produce some evidence in resisting a summary judgment motion.”). B. The Drug-free Workplace policy. Plaintiffs second claim is that the “Drug-free Workplace” policy maintained by defendant Qualex is a blanket exclusionary policy, leaving no allowance for the legal use of controlled substances. See Rowles v. Automated Production Systems, Inc., 92 F.Supp.2d 424, 430 (M.D.Pa.2000) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff further argues that defendant 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that employers drug policy violated the ada to the extent that it prohibits the use of all legally prescribed controlled substances without a determination that such prohibition is jobrelated and consistent with business necessity (B) holding highest and best use is to be considered to the full extent that the prospect of demand for such use affects the market value (C) holding that the 60day rule under the wisconsin controlled substances act is mandatory and that failure to set the hearing within that period deprived the trial court of jurisdiction (D) holding that the ada exceeds the  5 power  at least to the extent it extends beyond remedies for irrational discrimination (E) recognizing that the sentence imposed should be consistent with the protection of the public

Output: (A)


Input: Consider Input: and to specify the period of time during which the interception is authorized. 26 . See United States v. Figueroa, 757 F.2d 466, 472 (2d Cir.1985). 27 . Id. The Second Circuit has held that compliance with Title III amounts to compliance with the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1121 (2d Cir.1993) ("Surveillance that is properly authorized and carried out under Title III complies with the fourth amendment.”). 28 . 18 U.S.C. § 2515. 29 . Id. § 2518(10)(a). 30 . United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 527, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). 31 . 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). 32 . See id. at 357-59, 88 S.Ct. 507. 33 . Donovan, 429 U.S. at 436 n. 24, 97 S.Ct. 658. 34 . Cf. United States v. Duran, 189 F.3d 1071, 1085 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 35 . In the context of traditional land 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a modern cell phone is a computer and not just another purse or address book so that the potential invasion of privacy in a search of a cell phone is greater than in a search of a container in a conventional sense (B) holding seizure of arrestees cell phone lawful but finding the fourth amendment requires a warrant to perform a forensic search of the lawfully seized cell phone (C) holding that a wiretap orders failure to identify the electronic serial number on the interceptees new cell phone was not a warrantless search requiring suppression under katz (D) holding a warrantless search of cell phone contents did not exceed permissible scope of search incident to arrest (E) holding that finley authorizes a police officer to search the electronic contents of a cell phone recovered from the area within an arrestees immediate control


Output: (C)