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:
background nor his current offense can support the conclusion that he is a worst offender. The maximum sentence was therefore not justified. In deciding to impose the maximum sentence, Judge Michalski relied primarily on his conclusion that Skrepich was incapable of rehabilitation and could not personally be deterred. The judge thus gave primary emphasis to the need to protect the public by isolating Skrepich from the community. While the judge also indicated that a lengthy sentence would serve the sentencing goals of general deterrence and community condemnation, it seems clear that these goals could not, in themselves, support the imposition of a maximum, ten-year term for a first offender convicted of a class B felony. See Pears v. State, 698 P.2d 1198, 1204-05 (Alaska 1985) (<HOLDING>). The appropriateness of the maximum term 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district courts failure to explain the effect of supervised release was harmless where the maximum term of incarceration under the actual sentence of imprisonment and supervised release less than six years as well as his worstcase scenario less than nine years was less than the maximum term of incarceration twenty years al lowed by law (B) holding that a defendant may be convicted of felony murder when the death of his accomplice was a reasonably foreseeable result of their commission of a felony (C) holding that first and seconddegree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of seconddegree felony murder (D) holding that a term of substantially less than twenty years would serve the objectives of general deterrence and community condemnation in the case of a first offender convicted of seconddegree murder an unclassified felony (E) holding that twenty years was not excessive for second felony offender convicted of simple burglary

Ex Output:
(D)


Ex Input:
immunity exists. In Galvan v. Garmon, 710 F.2d 214 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied 466 U.S. 949, 104 S.Ct. 2150, 80 L.Ed.2d 536 (1984), the fifth circuit held that when a probation officer erroneously prepared a motion for revocation of appellant’s probation, she was only entitled to qualified immunity. The court distinguished its earlier case of Spaulding v. Nielsen, supra: We find Spaulding not controlling in the case at hand. Whereas in Spaulding the probation officer was acting at the direction of the court during the presen-tence report process, in the immediate case the probation officer acted at her own initiative and at a different phase of the criminal process less intimately associated with the judiciary. Galvan, at 215. See also Griffin v. Leonard, 821 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). We note also third circuit decisions, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity (B) holding under facts presented that probation officer was entitled to at least qualified immunity (C) holding officials are entitled to qualified immunity for reasonable mistakes of law (D) holding that where defendant claiming qualified immunity relies on facts that are in dispute qualified immunity cannot be granted (E) holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
and managed the other members of the conspiracy following her husband’s arrest. Guerra has not established that the district court clearly erred in imposing the three-level enhancement under § 3Bl.l(b). See id. She also argues that the district court erred when it applied the two-level weapons enhancement pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(l). A district court’s determination that the § 2Dl.l(b)(l) weapons enhancement applies is also a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir.2010). To support the enhancement, the Government must demonstrate a “temporal and spatial relationship [between] the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.” Id.; see also United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 766 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). If the Government satisfies its burden, “the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding intent may be inferred from large amount of marijuana (B) holding in a ease of a reverse sting operation the use of a large amount of drugs did not amount to sentencing factor manipulation (C) holding firearms large sums of cash  and uncharged quantities of illegal drugs are admissible to show a defendant is involved in the distribution of illegal drugs (D) holding that a large amount of drugs increases the likelihood of weapons (E) holding the large quantity of drugs sufficient evidence of intent to distribute

Ex Output:

(D)