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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: of finality which is essential to the operation of our criminal justice system.” Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 242, 110 S.Ct. 2822, 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990). Petitioner claims that Apprendi falls within the narrow scope of the second category of exceptions and is therefore applicable to his case retroactively. The Second Circuit has not yet addressed the question of whether Apprendi should be considered a “watershed rule,” falling within the Teague exceptions. However, every Circuit Court which has considered this question has held that Apprendi should not be applied retroactively on collateral review. United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 146 (4th Cir.2001); Jones v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1227, 1236 (9th Cir.2001); see, e.g., Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 687 (8th Cir.2001)(<HOLDING>); Browning v. United States, 241 F.3d 1262, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that petitioner was barred from bringing apprendi claim on second or successive motion to vacate because supreme court had not made apprendi retroactive to cases on collateral review (B) holding apprendi is not retroactive (C) holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review (D) holding that until the supreme court rules otherwise apprendi is not a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review  that was previously unavailable (E) holding that the apprendi decision is not applicable on collateral review

A: holding apprendi is not retroactive
****
Q: to the section 924(c) jury instruction, we review it for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Webster, 84 F.3d 1056, 1066 (8th Cir.1996). Although the pre-Bailey instruction was given to the jury (because Bailey had no rovide a defendant, upon their motion, any statement or report made by a government witness that relates to the subject matter of the direct testimony of that witness. 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The government need not provide the statement, however, until after the witness testifies on direct examination. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a). 6 . The district court’s ruling was essentially a discovery matter, which we review for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Byrne, 83 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir.1996); see also United States v. Phillips, 854 F.2d 273, 278 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Monroe, 943 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the fbi informants file contained no brady material not already provided to the defendant in a summary (B) holding that the alleged brady material was merely cumulative to the significant impeachment that already occurred during trial so there was no prejudice for a brady violation (C) holding that an fbi agents rough notes of an interview of the defendant were not brady material because there was no independent showing that they contained evidence that was material to the defendants guilt or innocence (D) holding a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to require disclosure of an informants name (E) holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying local rules that excluded some of the material facts offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment

A: holding that the alleged brady material was merely cumulative to the significant impeachment that already occurred during trial so there was no prejudice for a brady violation
****
Q: Martucci, Missouri Practice Series, Employment Law and Practice section 5:20 (2013-2014 ed.2013) (noting that whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive “generally is a factual issue for the jury, and the finding of sufficient severity depends on the nature and degree of the conduct”). “ ‘Once -there is evidence of improper conduct and subjective offense, the determination of whether the conduct rose to the level of abuse is largely in the hands of the jury.’ ” Cooper, 204 S.W.3d at 245 (quoting Howard v. Burns Bros., Inc., 149 F.3d 835, 840 (8th Cir.1998) (emphasis added)). Summary judgment will rarely be appropriate, therefore, in discriminatory harassment cases that turn on whether an employer’s conduct is objectively severe or pervasive. Cf. Daugherty, 231 S.W.3d at 818 (<HOLDING>). Rather, once subjectively offensive conduct 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if the resolution of material issues depends upon credibility determinations (B) holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotives theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination (C) holding that because discrimination cases often depend on inferences rather than on direct evidence summary judgment should not be granted unless the evidence could not support any reasonable inference for the nonmovant and summary judgment is appropriate in such cases only in  those rare instances where there is no dispute of fact and where there exists only one conclusion  quoting johnson 931 f2d at 1244 (D) holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotive theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination (E) holding that summary judgment is rarely appropriate in employment discrimination cases where determination of discriminatory animus requires the resolution of factual disputes that turn on reasonable inferences

A:
holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if the resolution of material issues depends upon credibility determinations
****