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 Q]: 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
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: in their Constitution, or from the Congress that the Constitution had empowered. We made a similar point in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S., at 416, where we considered a suit against a State in another State’s courts: “This [traditional] explanation [of sovereign immunity] adequately supports the conclusion that no sovereign may be sued in its own courts without its consent, but it affords no support for a claim of immunity in another sovereign’s courts. Such a claim necessarily implicates the power and authority of a second sovereign; its source must be found either in an agreement, express or implied, between the two sovereigns, or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity.” Cf. United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 646 (1892) (<HOLDING>). Subjecting States to federal jurisdiction in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an action cannot be maintained under young in unique circumstances where the suit against the state officer affects an essential attribute of state sovereignty in a manner that the action must be understood as one against the state (B) holding a states regulation of wyoming national guard was insufficient to implicate a special sovereignty interest because of the dual federal and state nature of national guard service (C) recognizing that a suit by the national government against a state does no violence to the inherent nature of sovereignty (D) holding the governors emergency powers to take private property for the public benefit was a special sovereignty interest but the relief requested was not so much of a divestiture of the states sovereignty to render the suit as one against the state itself (E) holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: to alter this standard. The Commonwealth Court held appellant did not satisfy the HUP test, and our grant of allocatur was limited to its continued viability in light of Act 55. As such, we will not review the Commonwealth Court’s application thereof, nor the relevance or constitutionality of Act 55. The order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Justices BAER, TODD and McCAFFERY join the opinion. Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice CASTILLE and Justice ORIE MELVIN join. 1 . This is not the precise measure, as a charity can relieve the government of some of its burden, even if the beneficiaries are not in the jurisdiction from which it seeks a tax exemption. See West Indies Mission Appeal, 387 Pa. 534, 128 A.2d 773, 781 (1957) (<HOLDING>). However, this issue is outside the scope of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a public employee who can be discharged only for cause is entitled to at least some informal due process before he can be terminated (B) holding that appeals are moot when appellate courts can provide no effective relief (C) recognizing that application of the seaman exemption is a factintensive question that can be answered in many cases only after a trial (D) holding charity can be entitled to exemption when its beneficiaries are outside pennsylvania (E) holding that statements even when made to a third party which are appropriately determined to be threatening can constitute obstruction of justice
[EX A]:
(D)