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: But he claims that release at age 60 is a geriatric release and the functional equivalent of life without parole in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He also argues that such release violates the principles in Graham, Miller, and Montgomery because release at age 60 provides only grim prospects for any meaningful future outside prison. [¶12.] Even if Charles’s 92-year sentence is equivalent to a sentence of life without parole, that alone does not mean his sentence is unconstitutional under Eighth Amendment precedent. The United States Supreme Court bars mandatory life sentences without parole against juvenile homicide offenders, not discretionary sentences of life without parole. See Miller, 567 U.S. at -, 132 S.Ct. at 2469; State v. Springer, 2014 S.D. 80, ¶ 15, 856 N.W.2d 460, 466 (<HOLDING>). [¶13.] In response, Charles asks this Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding sentences of life without parole unique in their severity (B) holding that graham which prohibited the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide does not apply to a lengthy termofyears sentence that might constitute a de facto life sentence (C) recognizing that njeither graham nor miller explicitly  apply to the functional equivalent of life without parole ie de facto life sentences (D) holding that consecutive fixedterm sentences for juveniles who committed multiple nonhomicide offenses are not clearly unconstitutional under graham even when they amount to the practical equivalent of life without parole (E) holding that williams fiftyyear sentence is not a de facto life sentence in violation of graham
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: evidence suggesting that each of the hotel stays involved the same individual, (e.g., the perpetrator gave the same fictitious address and/or fictitious telephone number; tips on credit card vouchers were in such amounts that the totals rounded off to even dollar amounts, the perpetrator departed prior to the scheduled end of his stay without checking out). “Evidence of this kind may be sufficient alone to establish a perpetrator’s identity. See United States v. Milhollan, 599 F.2d 518, 524-25 (3d Cir.1979) (finding similar modus operandi evidence probative of identity); 2 Jack B. Wein-stein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 404[16] (1992) (discussing "signature” evidence in context of Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)).” See also Featherstone v. Estelle, 948 F.2d 1497 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Evidence of individual modus operandi may be 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that admission of testimony which denominated appellants modus operandi in previously uncharged and charged crimes was not clearly erroneous (B) holding that rule 404b evidence is probative of intent only when the prior acts were part of the same scheme or involved a similar modus operandi as the present offense (C) holding that prior con victions are not related simply because the crimes used the same modus operandi were part of a crime spree or shared the same motive (D) holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive (E) holding other crimes evidence was properly admitted to establish modus operandi when the defendant attacked older women as they exited their garages in the same area of chicago
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: Ins. Co. (Mo. Ct. App.), 724 S.W.2d 307; Britt v. Phoenix Indem. Ins. Co. (N.M. 1995), 907 P.2d 994; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roberts (N.C. 1964), 134 S.E.2d 654; Celina Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Saylor (Ohio Misc. 1973), 301 N.E.2d 721; Stucky v. Long (Okla. Ct. App. 1989), 783 P.2d 500; Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Or. 1973), 507 P.2d 9; Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Olivier (R.I. 1990), 574 A.2d 1240; Stepp v. Hill (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), 1993 WL 181984; Whitehead v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Tex. Ct. App. 1997), 952 S.W.2d 79. But see McIntosh v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Minn. 1992), 488 N.W.2d 476, 479 (under UM coverage, “accident” is to be viewed from the perspective of the tortfeasor); Lindstrom v. Hanover Ins. Co. (N. J. 1994), 649 A.2d 1272, 1276 (<HOLDING>); McCarthy v. Motor Vehicle Accident 
 Holding statements: (A) holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy (B) holding that sciascia v american ins co nj super 1982 443 a2d 1118 which held that for purposes of um coverage accident must be viewed from the insured victims perspective was no longer respectable authority (C) holding that in order for insured to qualify for uim benefits there must have been a liability policy in effect um coverage does not satisfy this requirement (D) holding that waiver of um coverage was ineffective under south carolina law because insurer did not adequately advise insured party about um coverage (E) holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver
Example Output:
(B)