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: completed his nine month term of incarceration and was released from custody on Jply 28, 2017. Any challenge to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of his term' of confinement is thus moot. See United States v. Probber, 170 F.3d 345, 347-49 (2d Cir. 1999) (dismissing as moot an appeal from a judgment revoking supervised release where defendant had already completed his term of confinement). However, because defendant would still be entitled to a reduction of his term of supervised release if the court were to find such a reduction appropriate, we will analyze whether, as defendant claims, the supervised release component of the District Court’s sentence was either procedurally or substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Mazza Alaluf, 621 F.3d 205, 213 (2d Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Defendant contends that the District Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding substantive reasonableness sentencing challenge to be moot when defendant had completed prison sentence but addressing challenge to supervised release conditions (B) holding that where trial court did not inform defendant of supervised release term during plea colloquy but did advise defendant of term in presentence report and at sentencing defendants sentence stands (C) holding that a statute requiring a threeyear term of supervised release did not eviscerate the district courts discretion to adjust the term of supervised release pursuant to  3583e (D) holding that a completed term of confinement did not render a challenge to the reasonableness of a sentence moot where defendant could receive a reduced term of supervised release (E) holding defendant convicted under  841b1a may receive lifetime term of supervised release

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: essential element of an elevated breath alcohol level. Consequently, he contends that the judge’s ruling was essentially a determination that the exclusion of the BAT results left the State without sufficient proof to convict Defendant of the DWI charge, and that this constituted an adjudication of his innocence. Defendant also asserts that the judge’s oral comments that he had “reasonable doubt” and that he found Defendant “not guilty” further indicate that the judge deliberated on the merits of the case and acquitted Defendant of the DWI charge. Defendant does not, however, argue that the judge expressly ruled that Defendant was acquitted of the charges, nor would the record support such an assertion. See County of Los Alamos v. Tapia, 109 N.M. 736, 741, 790 P.2d 1017, 1022 (1990) (<HOLDING>). {20} The State concedes that jeopardy 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that when a cause of action is reduced to a judgment the cause of action is merged into the judgment and thereafter only an action on the judgment exists (B) recognizing that an actual express judgment of acquittal precludes retrial regardless of any defects in the process leading to the judgment (C) holding that defects in service of process must be raised in preliminary objections (D) holding on summary judgment that an attorney who failed to timely file an answer leading to a default judgment was on notice that a malpractice claim might be filed against him (E) recognizing that an appeal from a final judgment permits an attack against any nonfinal order or ruling leading up to it

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: interest exists here; the surety has a $75,000 financial obligation composed of two separate bail bonds. And there is also little question that there is a significant governmental interest here: the efficient operation of judicial and bail-bond systems and the need to ensure the attendance of defendants at court proceedings. We conclude that there was a complete failure to provide procedural safeguards to protect appellants’ interests in this case because of the failure of the administrator to provide any notice to appellants that the bond was initially forfeited. This failure to follow rule 702(e) meant that appellants never knew that defendant had absconded and issued a second bond without notice of the first forfeiture. Cf. McElwain v. Van Beek, 447 N.W.2d 442, 447 (Minn.App.1989) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1989). 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an alien must establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged error in order to prevail on a due process claim (B) holding that the defendant did not require advance notice where he could not show how he was prejudiced by late notice or how he could have been helped by additional notice (C) holding the tenday requirement was ministerial and the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the delay (D) recognizing that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a movant must show that he was prejudiced by his counsels performance (E) recognizing in summaryjudgment context that party must show he was prejudiced by lack of notice or other procedural irregularities to prove he is entitled to relief from district courts ruling


Output: (E)