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: with our ability to review the sentence imposed by the district court for substantive reasonableness because, on review, we must compare the sentence imposed with the correctly calculated Guidelines sentencing range. He contends the relevant Guidelines sentencing range is the post-departure Guidelines sentencing range. But it is the pre-departure Guidelines sentencing range that the district court must correctly calculate and that we must use when we review a sentence for substantive reasonableness. See United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 987 (9th Cir.2006) (“[W]e elect to review the district court’s application of the advisory sentencing guidelines only insofar as they do not involve departures.”); see also United States v. Tankersley, 537 F.3d 1100, 1114 n. 11 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). We used the pre-departure sentence for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause (B) holding that a fee application based on claims that were interrelated nonfrivolous and raised in good faith may still be excessive where the applicant achieved only partial or limited success (C) holding forbearance to sue is a good consideration for a promise founded thereon and it is only essential that the claim be asserted in good faith (D) holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law (E) holding mohamed is still good law

Answer: (E)


Question: whether the Bank was motivated, in whole or in part, by Strate’s association with her disabled newborn child, then summary judgment was improperly granted for the Bank. The evidence establishes that Strate gave birth to her disabled child on April 20, 2001, enrolled the child in the Bank’s group healthcare plan on April 24, 2001, and was notified that her job had been eliminated on July 2, 2001, approximately two months later. It is undisputed that Ziegler knew about the child’s disability when he made the decision to eliminate her job. On rare occasions, a close temporal connection between a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation. See,e.g., Bassett v. City of Minneapolis, 211 F.3d 1097, 1105-06 (8th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>) (citing cases). It follows that close temporal 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection (B) holding that a temporal link between protected activity and an adverse employment action may in some cases be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation (C) holding that temporal proximity between the alleged retaliators knowledge of a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish causal connection or retaliatory motive in some cases (D) holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation (E) holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action

Answer: (B)


Question: chapter 7 petition are inconsistent with the established purpose of the Bankruptcy Code. After reviewing the three lines of cases, this Court concluded that if a debt- or, by way of the filing of a chapter 7 proceeding, was willing to surrender his or her non-exempt assets, regardless of the motive for the filing, the debtor nonetheless would be entitled to Chapter 7 protection. In re RIS Inv. Group, Inc., 298 B.R. 848, 852 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2003), citing In re Padilla, at 1193. The Court is aware that there are numerous cases that have since been published on this issue in almost every Circuit. It appears that the Circuits continue to be split on the issue of bad faith and whether it constitutes cause to dismiss a chapter 7 bankruptcy. Compare U.S. v. Pedigo, 329 B.R. 47 (S.D.Ind.2005) (<HOLDING>) and In re Linehan, 326 B.R. 474 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a bad faith claim is a tort (B) holding that lack of good faith is a valid basis to dismiss a chapter 7 case for cause under section 707a (C) holding that although courts have inherent power to dismiss bad faith litigant  707a does not provide basis for dismissal on grounds of bad faith filing (D) holding title company liable for bad faith (E) holding that the list contained in 11usc  707a is not exhaustive such that bad faith may constitute cause for dismissal in a chapter 7 bankruptcy

Answer:
(E)