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:
showing he was denied a constitutional right. Because Weaver’s application for a COA raises several claims, it is impossible to glean from the present record which issue(s) the district court thought worthy of appeal. Cf. Murray, 145 F.3d at 1250-51 (determining that while court of appeals could not decide issue not specified in COA, it could “construe the issue specification in light of the pleadings and other parts of the record”). Therefore we must remand the record for the district court to specify the issue or issues for appeal. See Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 46 (5th Cir.1997); Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 105 F.3d 1063, 1076 (6th Cir.1997); Hunter v. United States, 101 F.3d 1565, 1584 (11th Cir.1996); but cf. Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). It is so 
 Holding statements: (A) holding remand for specification of issues unnecessary where clear from briefing appellant had not made substantial showing he was denied any constitutional right (B) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right (C) holding that appellant had waived any objection to an instruction that he had himself introduced and which was amended by the state without objection from appellant (D) holding that application of section 9711h as amended did not deprive appellant of any constitutional right (E) holding that where appellant acknowledged timely receiving notice by regular mail appellant appeared and fully participated at the trial and appellant made no claim that he was harmed in any way appellee had fulfilled the primary purposes of texrcivp 21a
answer:
(A)


question:
the Chapter 13 Plan, and by selecting which exemptions, if any, the Debtor should claim on Schedule C, the Defendants engaged in providing legal advice to the Debtor in violation of § 110(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. “Advising of available exemptions ... or actually choosing an exemption for the debtor ... requires the exercise of legal judgment beyond the capacity and knowledge of lay persons.” In re Kaitangian, 218 B.R. 102, 110 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1998). See also In re Dunkle, 272 B.R. 450 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2002) (classifying and selecting exemptions violates § 110); In re Moffett, 263 B.R. 805 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.2001) (advising upon available exemptions violates § 110). Such business practice also constitutes the unlawful practice of law. See In re Bachmann, 113 B.R. 769 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 110(Z)(1), the 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing legal services organizations first amendment right of associating to advocate legal rights (B) holding that bpps may not engage in legal assistance make inquiries or answer legal questions (C) recognizing that inmates have no freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance (D) recognizing that courts may make reasoned adjustments in legal system (E) holding that many courts have recognized that an employer may make reasonable inquiries into the retirement plans of its employees
answer:
(B)


question:
terms, as Justice Holmes put it, a “conspiracy is a partnership in criminal purposes.” United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 608, 31 S.Ct. 124, 126, 54 L.Ed. 1168 (1910). Because most conspiracies are “clandestine in nature,” 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 12.2(a), at 266 (2d ed.2003), by “the very nature of the offense, it often may be established only by indirect and circumstantial evidence,” Wright, 224 Va. at 505, 297 S.E.2d at 713 (quoting Floyd v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 575, 580, 249 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1978)). It is a rare case where any “formal agreement among alleged conspirators” can be established. Wilder Enter, v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp., 632 F.2d 1135, 1141 (4th Cir.1980); see also Combs v. Commonwealth, 30 Va.App. 802, 810, 520 S.E.2d 400, 404 (1999) (<HOLDING>). As often as not, conspirators play different 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required (B) holding that a theory of recovery pleaded but not submitted to the jury by explicit agreement need not be considered on appeal (C) holding a party breaches a plea agreement by acting in a manner not specifically prohibited by the agreement but still incompatible with explicit promises made in the agreement (D) holding that expert proof was not required for an asserted claim of ordinary negligence (E) holding that proof of an overt act is not required in a  846 conspiracy
answer:

(A)