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.

[Q]: a habeas petition, and since his administrative remedies are now exhausted, this claim can proceed. B. Fox’s Notification Challenge is Properly Before The Court The second half of Fox’s claim relating to the notification requirement of the statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 4042(c)(2), is properly brought by him as a petition for a declaratory judgment. Notification claims do not relate to the fact or duration of confinement, therefore challenge to a notification requirement is not properly brought as a habeas petition. See Bunn v. Conley, 309 F.3d 1002, 1008-09 (7th Cir. 2002) (“The notification scheme [under 18 U.S.C § 4042(b) governing violent offender notification] in no way affects the duration, much less the fact, of confinement.”); Henrikson v. Guzik, 249 F.3d 395, 397 n. 4 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction (B) holding that because henrikson is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement subject matter jurisdiction is not present under 28 us  2241 (C) holding that subject matter jurisdiction under  2241 is present in the custodial court when the petition challenges the manner location or condition of a sentences execution (D) holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction   depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc  1330a and proper service under 28 usc  1608 (E) holding that district courts have jurisdiction under 28 usc  2241 to review cat claims for errors of law including the erroneous application or interpretation of statutes
[A]: (B)


[Q]: also have not obtained approval from any federal, state, or local government agency, which is a prerequisite for doing business in the heavily regulated alcohol industry. See, e.g., Adolph Coors Co. v. Bentsen, 2 F.3d 355, 356 (10th Cir.1993) (citing 27 U.S.C. §§ 201-11); Fedway Assocs., Inc. v. United States Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 976 F.2d 1416, 1418 (D.C.Cir.1992) (citing same); Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Wholesalers, Inc. v. Ayers, 504 A.2d 1077, 1078-80 (Del.1986) (citing Del.Code Ann. tit. 4, § 101 et seq. (1984)). In the face of these multiple contingencies, the court cannot conclude that this case is ripe for decision. See Kiser v. Johnson, 404 F.Supp. 879, 886 (M.D.Pa.1975); cf. Abbott Labs. v. Zenith Labs., Inc., 934 F.Supp. 925, 938 (N.D.Ill.1995) (<HOLDING>). To paraphrase the Polaroid court, if this 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that although the fourth circuit has not yet addressed the issue partial discharge may be granted to the extent that it would be an undue hardship for the debtor to have to pay that portion of the loan that is to be discharged (B) recognizing that even if approval by the food and drug administration could be obtained within three months this approval had yet to be granted at the time of the courts decision and there was no guarantee that the  approval would be forthcoming on any particular date in the future (C) holding that the date of the offense was material to the defense where defendant could not have anticipated from the date specified in the indictment that the state would present evidence that the crime occurred nearly two months later (D) holding that decision of this court unless or until overturned by this court en banc the  federal circuit or the supreme court is a decision of the court on the date it is issued any rulings interpretations or conclusions of law contained in such a decision are authoritative and binding as of the date the decision is issued and are to be considered and when applicable are to be followed by va agencies of original jurisdiction the board and the secretary in adjudicating and resolving claims (E) holding that where approval of the board of directors was not formally requested a demand would have been futile for it could hardly be expected that if approval of the board of directors were sought defendant who controlled 50 of the board would have authorized the action against himself
[A]: (B)


[Q]: MCI's third-party action against Marcopolo. In MCI’s appeal of the special appearance ruling, we affirmed the trial court’s decision. See Motor Coach Indus., Inc. v. Marcopolo, S.A., 2007 WL 4157241 (Tex.App.-Waco Nov.21, 2007, no pet.). MCI's eighth issue contends that, if the trial court erred by granting Marcopolo's special appearance, its severance of MCI’s third-party action against Mar-copolo would have been erroneous and the judgment should be reversed. Because we affirmed the trial court's decision on Marco-polo's special appearance, we overrule MCI's eighth issue. 2 . Two Texas Supreme Court decisions have addressed the implied preemption of state common-law tort claims by federal motor vehicle safety standards: Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 974 S.W.2d 1, 13 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>); and Great Dane Trailers, Inc. v. Estate of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a state common law claim seeking to require automobile manufacturers to install airbags would frustrate the purposes of the federal safety standard regulations adopted under the federal motor vehicle safety act which did not require manufacturers to do so and therefore was preempted by conflict (B) holding that the safety act and fmvss 108 did not impliedly preempt commonlaw conspicuity tort based on inadequate lighting and reflectors on truck trailer (C) holding that the coast guards decision not to regulate propeller guards did not impliedly preempt petitioners tort claims (D) holding that the safety act and fmvss 208 did not expressly or impliedly preempt a tort claim based on the manufacturers failure to install lap belts (E) holding that claims were nothing more than a backdoor attempt to attack once again the manufacturers exercise of one of the restraint options under fmvss 208  it therefore frustrates the purpose and objective of the federal regulation and invokes implied preemption under the holding in geier 
[A]:
(D)