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.

Ex Input:
any records it has linking Gordon, Langford, or Ford to its investigation into the four murders, or it must follow the normal practice in FOIA cases of identifying the records it has withheld and stating its reasons for doing so.” Id. at 1182. Although the plaintiff maintains a claim of innocence, unlike in Roth, any public interest in knowing whether the defendant withholds information that could corroborate that claim does not outweigh the privacy interests at stake. c. Balancing the Privacy and Public Interests If there is a privacy interest in the requested materials and no public interest in disclosure, “[w]e need rcement agents. However, individuals mentioned in law enforcement files also have a recognized privacy interest. See Spirko v. USPS, 147 F.3d 992, 999 (D.C.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). And plaintiff has failed to show how the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the privacy interests of the employee police officers did not exceed the publics right to know (B) recognizing the strong privacy interests of the suspects and law enforcement officers identified in the withheld documents (C) holding that exemption 7c protects the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records whether they be investigators suspects witnesses or informants and their names are generally exempt from disclosure (D) recognizing the privacy interests when requested documents neither confirm nor refute the plaintiffs allegations of government misconduct (E) holding that exemption 7c protects the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records whether they be investigators suspects witnesses or informants and their names are generally exempt from disclosure  

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
and misunderstanding of the local rules involving summar he district court abused its discretion in denying their Rule 60(b)(3) motion for relief from judgment. See Hesling v. CSX Tramp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir.2005). The Sangis did not provide the district court with clear and convincing evidence that FCC engaged in fraud or other misconduct or that any misconduct prevented them from fully and fairly presenting their case. See Gov’t Fin. Servs. v. Peyton Place, Inc., 62 F.3d 767, 772 (5th Cir.1995). Rather the Sangis offered only allegations of fraud and misconduct. Nor have the Sangis shown exceptional circumstances to merit relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the general rule that issues not raised in the lower court may not be addressed on appeal applies only to appellants (B) holding that privilege applies in similar factual circumstances (C) holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant (D) holding that cjredibility determinations are questions of fact and should only be overturned in extraordinary circumstances (E) holding that rule 60b6 only applies in extraordinary circumstances suggesting that the party is faultless in the delay

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
In addition, he filed, in this Court, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which this Court granted. Liddy v. Lamone, 395 Md. 420, 910 A.2d 1061 (2006). The appellees and Gansler subsequently filed a Joint Cross-Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Oral argument was heard on November 2, 2006, and, on that same day, the Court issued its Order vacating the judgment of the Circuit Court and remanding the case to that court with directions to dismiss it on the ground of laches. We now set forth the reasons for that Order. B. Laches is one of the affirmative defenses recognized and expressly listed in M d. Rule 2-323. Generally, it must be pled, but it can be invoked by a court on its own initiative. See, e.g., Ipes v. Board of Fire Comm’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. 180, 183, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961) (<HOLDING>); Baltimore County v. Glendale Corp., 219 Md. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is itself generally a matter of discretion (B) holding that a court of appeals may transfer petitions for writ of mandamus to the court of proper jurisdiction pursuant to  1631 (C) holding public standing doctrine permitted action for emergency writ of mandamus (D) recognizing that laches is a proper ground for refusing to issue a writ of mandamus (E) holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances

Ex Output:

(D)