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.

Input: Consider Input: concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship. However, courts faced with this issue have refused to apply this provision to government employees testifying in criminal trials based on the rationale that no individual can bind the sovereign. See United States v. Kampiles, 609 F.2d 1233, 1246 (7th Cir.1979) ("Because the agents of the Government are supposedly disinterested in the outcome of a trial and are traditionally unable to bind the sovereign, their statements seem less the product of the adversary process and hence less appropriately described as admissions of a party.” (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 954, 100 S.Ct. 2923, 64 L.Ed.2d 812 (1980); United States v. Santos, 372 F.2d 177, 180 (2d Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Durrani, 659 F.Supp. 1183 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible (B) holding inconsistent out of court statements otherwise admissible not admissible against government in criminal prosecution (C) holding in a criminal case that a statement by an unavailable declarant was not admissible as a declaration against his penal interest and was not admissible under rule 804b5 either (D) holding statements by coconspirator nontestimonial and thus admissible (E) holding alford plea admissible in burglary prosecution

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: until after the interview ended. Defendants therefore contend that we should ignore contrary testimony by Whalen and Connelly. On summary judgment, however, we do not merely accept the plaintiff's contentions as true. Instead, we must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmovanfs favor. There is no requirement that inferences favorable to the plaintiff may only be based on evidence that she has submitted to us. Here, the justifiable inference favorable to plaintiff is that a question of fact exists regarding this issue. 6 . The Supreme Court’s plurality decision in Al-bright casts some doubt on whether a plaintiff may state a claim for coercion of a confession under both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. See Albright,-U.S. at-,-,-, -, 114 S.Ct. at 813, 814, 817, 820-21 (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit has stated that Albright 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under  1983 because it violates the fourth amendment (B) recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim (C) holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed (D) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment (E) holding in five separate opinions that  1983 claim based on persons arrest cannot be brought under substantive due process where more specific constitutional provision  fourth amendment  applies

Output: (E)


Input: Consider Input: relief. We vacate the court’s decision: on remand the issue of the availability and scope of injunc-tive relief must be referred to arbitration. V. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the superior court’s order staying court proceedings and submitting the dispute to arbitration, but we REVERSE and VACATE the superior court’s ruling that the arbitrator can order statewide injunctive relief, and we REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . In both cases Citibank (South Dakota) NA issued the cards, but in Stewart's case Midland Funding LLC purchased the account from Citibank. 2 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 82(b)(1), (b)(4). 3 . For convenience, the parties will be referred to collectively as “Citibank'1 and "Hudson.” 4 . Compare Airoulofski v. State, 922 P.2d 889, 894 n.5 (Alaska 1996) (<HOLDING>), with Blood v. Kenneth Murray Ins. Co., 68 
 Holding statements: (A) holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo (B) holding that when the facts of a robbery are undisputed the imposition of the enhancement is a question of the application of the guidelines to be reviewed de novo (C) recognizing that this court reviews de novo the trial courts interpretation and application of a statute to undisputed facts (D) holding the ultimate question of probable cause should be reviewed de novo (E) holding that waiver should be reviewed de novo when decided without trial on undisputed facts


Output: (E)