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: expenses related to the children’s needs at the time of the hearing. The trial court made numerous, in-depth findings regarding the children’s accustomed standard of living, the needs of the children, and the variance between the expenses incurred by defendant on behalf of the children and expenses incurred by plaintiff on behalf of the children. These findings are sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that the Pataky presumption was rebutted. Although in most cases, the custodial parent obtains an increase in child support, a court has discretionary authority to enter an order establishing child support in an amount less than the amount established by a separation or child support agreement. See Bottomley v. Bottomley, 82 N.C. App. 231, 234-35, 346 S.E.2d 317, 320 (1986) (<HOLDING>). We hold the trial court did not abuse its 
 Holding statements: (A) holding provision in contempt order void because it punished relator for violating order that trial court lacked authority to enter (B) holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet (C) holding trial court had discretionary authority to enter order setting child support amount as less than that provided for in the parties separation agreement (D) holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality (E) holding that an order that determines only the right to attorneys fees without setting the amount is a nonappealable nonfinal order
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: with “complete and final discretionary authority to interpret the plans and maintain control over the operation and administration of the plans.” Accordingly, the Chevron Plan, via the Services Agreement and the SPD, delegates authority to Aetna regarding benefit eligibility for the Medical Plan. Moreover, in this situation, Aetna made a factual determination that certain diagnostic testing and IVIG treatments were not medically necessary. “[F]actual determinations made by [an] administrator during the course of a benefits review will be rejected only upon the showing of an abuse of discretion.” Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Sterling Chems., Inc., 168 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir.1999); see also Chandler v. Hartford Life, No. 05-50688, 2006 WL 1209363, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr.28, 2006) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp., 168 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion (B) holding that a denial of benefits will not be reviewed de novo where the language of an erisa plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan (C) holding that arbitrary and capricious standard applies to section 1132a1b denial ofbenefits claims if the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan (D) holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion (E) holding that  rjegardless of the administrators ultimate authority to determine benefit eligibility  factual determinations made by the administrator during the course of a benefits review will be rejected only upon the showing of an abuse of discretion 
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit hostage taking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1203, and conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(l)(A)(v)(I)(II). We previously held that Avilez-Zamora’s plea agreement waived his right to appeal all aspects of his sentence, except for the court’s application of grouping under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Avilez-Zamora, 168 Fed.Appx. 803 (9th Cir.2006) (unpublished decision). Avilez-Zamora does not raise any challenge to grouping in his briefs. Accordingly, the law of this case dictates that the appeal waiver in Avilez-Zamora’s plea agreement precludes this current appeal. See id.-, see also Snow-Erlin v. United States, 470 F.3d 804, 807 (2006) (<HOLDING>). DISMISSED. ** This disposition is not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive (B) holding that the appellate court does not reconsider matters resolved on a prior appeal (C) recognizing the general rule that an appellate court will not address matters that were not raised or decided in the trial court   (D) recognizing appellate court may not reverse a summary judgment on a basis not raised by the appellant on appeal (E) recognizing rule that appellate court may not consider matters outside the record is so elemental that there is no excuse for any attorney to attempt to bring such matters before the court
Example Output:
(B)