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.

Example Input: appeals from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion for reconsideration challenging the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Henderson contends that the district abused its discretion by denying his motion, which we construe as a motion for relief from final judgment based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1171-72 (9th Cir.1989). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Henderson’s motion because his almost two-year delay before filing the motion was not reasonable. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c) (“A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time.... ”); In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an over twoyear delay without any excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law (B) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to find an unexcused twoyear delay unreasonable (C) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (D) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony (E) holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: 421 U.S. 723, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975), and is consistent with the holdings in Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 382, 103 S.Ct. 683, 687, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983), and in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, supra. Blue Chip Stamps held that a section 10(b) plaintiff must be a purchaser or seller of a security, and thus limited standing under the 1934 Act to “plaintiffs ... who have at least dealt in the security to which the prospectus, representation, or omission relates.” Id. 421 U.S. at 747, 95 S.Ct. at 1931. Put and call option trading on an underlying security is directly affected by the prospecti, representations and omissions of the issuer of the underlying security. See Deutschman, 841 F.2d at 506. Cf. Kirby v. Cullinet Software, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 303 (D.Mass.1987) (<HOLDING>). In Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members (B) holding that class representatives cannot appear pro se (C) holding that sellers of covered calls are not atypical class representatives (D) holding that a class representatives ignorance of the case is not a bar to certification unless it impairs the representatives ability to vigorously prosecute the action (E) holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: of the defendant following a bench trial. We affirm. The plaintiff sued the defendant for civil theft. See § 772.104, Fla. Stat (1995). The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs civil theft claim failed, as he failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with criminal intent. At the end of the proceedings, the plaintiff made an ore tenus motion to amend the pleadings to add a claim for fraudulent inducement in conformity with the evidence. The trial court denied the motion and entered final judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to amend to conform with the evidence. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(b); Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Nunez, 646 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>), review denied 658 So.2d 992; see also 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion (B) holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion (C) holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion (D) holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court (E) holding that a trial courts decision to permit or to refuse amendments to pleading to conform to the evidence during trial will ordinarily not be disturbed on appeal in absence of abuse of discretion
Example Output:
(E)