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.

Q: WTT Project area as defined by the Corps. NEF contends that we need not consider the State’s argument because the State failed to raise this argument in its initial motion to clarify, instead raising it for the first time in its Rule 59(e) motion. “Rule 59(e) motions are ‘aimed at reconsideration, not initial consideration.’ ” FDIC v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992) (quoting Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Bank of New England, 897 F.2d 611, 616 (1st Cir.1990)). In World University, this Court held that the defendant’s argument, which it raised for the first time in a Rule 59(e) motion, was barred where there was no reason why the defendant could not have presented its argument prior to its motion to alter or amend the judgment. Id.; see also Engler, 146 F.3d at 374 (<HOLDING>). This rule, however, does not cover the facts 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument (B) holding that a party in a habeas case waives an argument by failing to raise it before the district court (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (D) holding that an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion (E) holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court

A: (D)
****
Q: discretion. Commonwealth v. Collins, 598 Pa. 397, 957 A.2d 237, 272 (2008). As noted, discovery in death penalty collateral proceedings is permissible only upon leave of court, and only for good cause shown. Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(2). “ ‘A showing of good cause requires more than just a generic demand for potentially exculpatory evidence.’ ” Collins, 957 A.2d at 272 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 579 Pa. 119, 855 A.2d 726, 750 (2004)). We agree with the Commonwealth that Elliott has failed to demonstrate that the PCRA court abused its discretion by denying Elliott’s request for additional discovery. Elliott has not identified any document that was withheld from him that would have been exculpatory, and his claims to the contrary constitute mere speculation. See Hanible, 30 A.3d at 484 (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d at 261 
 Holding statements: (A) holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause (B) holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury (C) holding that record must show that evidence is exculpatory for defendant to establish brady violation (D) holding that speculation that production of requested documents might reveal exculpatory evidence is insufficient to establish good cause for discovery (E) holding that conjecture that opportunity to review homicide file might yield exculpatory evidence is inadequate to demonstrate good cause for discovery

A: (E)
****
Q: firmness in fear of immediate bodily harm. State v. Roberts, 270 N.C. 655, 658, 155 S.E.2d 303, 305 (1967) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In this case, based on the underlying factual scenario giving rise to Defendant’s charges, we believe an assault with a deadly weapon was involved in the commission of the crime of resisting an officer. Specifically, Defendant’s actions of stating that he wasn’t going with the officers, running into the bedroom where he stood within arm’s reach of a loaded revolver, and resisting while being handcuffed and removed from the bedroom were an “unequivocal appearance of an attempt, with force and violence, to do some immediate physical injury to” the officers. Id.; see also State v. Barksdale, 181 N.C. App. 302, 307, 638 S.E.2d 579, 583 (2007) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). In sum, the trial court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an unloaded gun used in the commission of an aggravated assault is a deadly weapon (B) holding that an obstructionofjustice enhancement was appropriate based on the defendants assault on a witness after trial and rejecting the defendants argument that because the assault occurred after trial it could not impact the prosecution of his case (C) holding that resisting arrest is lesser offense of assault on an officer (D) holding that consent is not a defense to the charge of second degree assault where the assault occurred in the context of a prison fight between inmates (E) holding that we are not persuaded by defendants contention that an assault did not take place because he never made physical contact with the weapon in light of the evidence showing that the gun was only inches from defendants outstretched hand and that defendant was actively forcefully and to some degree successfully resisting the officers attempt to arrest him we do not believe in light of our states definition of assault that defendants failure to physically touch the weapon precludes the commission of an assault with the firearm

A:
(E)
****