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.

Example Input: in that the timely filing of such claims is both mandatory and jurisdictional. That limitation derives from the proposition of sovereign immunity. It is well established that a claim against the United States is barred absent waiver of sovereign immunity, “ ‘and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.’ ” United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941)). A waiver of immunity cannot be implied; it must be “unequivocally expressed in the statutory text.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192, 116 S.Ct. 2092, 135 L.Ed.2d 486 (1996); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The United States has expressly consented to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal (B) holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity (C) recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states (D) holding that federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim against the united states or one of its agencies absent a clear waiver of sovereign immunity (E) holding that a lack of a waiver of sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction
Example Output: (D)

Example Input: v. State, 175 Ga. App. 234, 238-39 (4) (333 SE2d 103) (1985) (reversing conviction when there was no evidence that firearm found near defendant was on defendant’s person during commission of the crime). 32 Carswell, 251 Ga. App. at 735 (1) (b) (emphasi at jury could “consider the evidence concerning the small size and crowded conditions within the residence and infer that it was inevitable” that defendant passed even momentarily within arm’s reach of a firearm hidden under a couch that was positioned behind a coffee table containing cocaine). 36 Copeland v. State, 228 Ga. App. 734, 736 (1) (492 SE2d 723) (1997), declined to follow on other grounds, Weems v. State, 269 Ga. 577, 579 (2) & n.2 (501 SE2d 806) (1998). Cf. Ferguson v. State, 307 Ga. App. 232, 233 (1) (704 SE2d 470) (2010) (<HOLDING>). 37 See Martinez v. State, 303 Ga. App. 166, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial (B) holding inter alia that a jury may consider a defendants appearance at trial in conjunction with the evidence submitted at trial in order to resolve conflicts in the testimony presented (C) holding that the trial court properly added a party defendant to conform to the evidence presented at the trial (D) holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requires the jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial (E) holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requiresthe jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: that Major Anderson submitted to the Board, he apparently believed that he could waive any return to active duty and still be compensated. A.R. 66 (“I do not wish to be placed back on active duty, but instead compensated for the full monetary equivalence of that promotion.”). Aside from this mistaken interpretation of law, Major Anderson has made no argument or showing that his request to the Board was anything other than informed and carefully contemplated. His mistaken interpretation of the law does not obviate the fact that Major Anderson apparently undertook a careful consideration of his career and circumstances prior to filing his appeal with the Board and making his request to be left in the Reserves. See Turnage v. Dep’t. of Agriculture, 230 Ct.Cl. 799, 1982 WL 25186 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Cf. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 774, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that jury waiver stating that it was made knowingly and voluntarily raised presumption of same and that burden was on party challenging enforceability of jury waiver to present evidence overcoming presumption (B) holding that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily (C) holding that an express waiver of the right to a hearing before an administrative board was a tactical decision made knowingly and voluntarily despite the plaintiffs misinterpretation of the applicable law and regulations (D) holding prelitigation waiver of jury trial must be made knowingly and voluntarily and courts will indulge in every reasonable presumption against a waiver of that right (E) recognizing initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence that jury waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made is on party seeking to enforce provision
Example Output:
(C)