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]: to that extent. Reed, supra, at 17, 104 S.Ct. 2901. The holding in Cage represents a degree of novelty sufficient to constitute cause. As such, Mercer has established cause to avoid otherwise procedurally defaulting on his claim challenging the reasonable doubt instruction. Sufficient prejudice to establish federal habeas jurisdiction also exists. In particular, the Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases is so intertwined with the Sixth Amendment right to a jury verdict that a constitutionally deficient jury instruction cannot produce a guilty verdict comporting with due process but, rather, requires reversal of a conviction. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277-80, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (<HOLDING>). It follows that a claimed Cage violation 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (B) holding exclusion was harmless error (C) holding that when defendant properly objects to charge error reversal required unless error was harmless (D) holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error (E) holding a cage violation could never be held harmless error and thus not amenable to harmless error review but rather required outright reversal
[A]: (E)


[Q]: is limited in applicability to only cases, like this one, in which the total noneconomic damages awarded by the jury were in excess of both of the $250,000 caps and in excess of the $500,000 combined total of both applicable caps; the jury here awarded $1,725,000 in noneconomic damages. 29 . Chesser argues that because a jointly and severally liable defendant possesses a right of contribution, the statutory provisions at issue do not conflict. A right of contribution, however, presupposes that the defendant has actually paid the damages — that is, has already been civilly liable — for noneconomic damages in excess of the $250,000 cap applicable to that defendant, in violation of the express language of section 74.301(b). See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 33.015(a), (b) (West 2008) (<HOLDING>). 30 . Appellees concede that Hospital remains 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing a right to contribution (B) recognizing that prior to 1949 when the statute permitting contribution among joint tortfeasors was enacted no right of contribution existed between jointtortfeasors in delaware (C) recognizing contribution in the appropriate case (D) recognizing in both subsections a right of contribution when a defendant has paid a percentage of damages greater than his percentage of responsibility (E) recognizing right of contribution against joint tortfeasor where release is obtained on his behalf
[A]: (D)


[Q]: that the recipients of the devices used the devices for their intended purpose — to receive unauthorized cable service offered on the plaintiffs system. Id. at 460. Similarly, the district court in DIRECTV Inc. v. McCool, 339 F.Supp.2d 1025, 1033 (M.D.Tenn.2004), found that a factual dispute existed for trial where defendant denied that he purchased and used an un-looper device, and plaintiffs evidence of unlawful interception of DIRECTV’s satellite signal, “albeit circumstantial,” showed “that an order was placed for the unlooper by someone using Defendant’s credit card and e-mail address, and that the unlooper was shipped to Defendant’s residential address.” Id. at 1034; see also DirectTV, Inc. v. Griepsma, No. 03-CV-6243-CJS-JWF, 2005 WL 608250 at *7 (W.D.N.Y. March 11, 2005)(<HOLDING>). A genuine issue of material fact clearly 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence (B) holding that although there was no direct evidence of use of an unlooper by the defendant use could be inferred from the purchase and delivery of the unlooper to the defendant (C) holding that the use of a corset spring device was public although the use was by its nature not visible to the general public (D) holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs (E) holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and from all circumstances
[A]:
(B)