instruction:
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.
question:
determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Hunt, J., concur. 1 O’Connor later produced a valid concealed weapons permit. 2 Simple possession of a controlled substance is a lesser included offense of possession with intent to deliver. State v. Harris, 14 Wn. App. 414, 418, 542 P.2d 122 (1975); see State v. Sims, 119 Wn.2d 138, 142, 829 P.2d 1075 (1992) ("Where one merely possesses a controlled substance without the statutory element of intent, one is guilty of simple possession under RCW 69.50.401(d), absent unwitting possession.”); State v. Robbins, 68 Wn. App. 873, 877, 846 P.2d 585 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 3 It is not clear when he purchased the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defendant could only be sentenced to a single offense under section 1244011 not both conspiracy with intent to deliver and possession with intent to deliver (B) holding second simple possession conviction was not an aggravated felony because it was not prosecuted as recidivist possession (C) holding that possession with intent to distribute and simple possession are the same offense under blockburger (D) holding that trial court may arrest judgment on conviction for possession with intent to deliver and enter judgment of guilt on simple possession (E) holding that the defendants prior drug conviction for simple possession did not constitute a controlled substance offense because the plain language of  4b12b requires that the prior conviction involve possession with intent to distribute
answer:
(D)


question:
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Property Tax Div. of Utah State Tax Comm’n, 979 P.2d 346, 351 (Utah 1999) (ruling that continuing denial of a benefit to which a party is entitled provides a basis for standing to obtain judicial review of an administrative rule). The plaintiffs claim that he would be “directly and immediately better off — in the emphatically concrete sense that ... he would have more money in his pocket sooner — if he could obtain relief through the Notice procedure ... without sacrificing a major portion of his claim,” Pl.’s Opp’n at 5, is “[n]o reasonable mind could doubt ... a judicially cognizable injury sufficient to satisfy the injury in fact test for Article III standing,” see Ontario Forest Industries Assoc. v. United States, 444 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1323-24 (CIT 2006) (<HOLDING>) (citing Gen. Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that declaratory judgment requiring party to pay a specific sum of money is properly characterized as a money judgment (B) holding that taking money from a victim offering the money out of fear of violence can be larceny from the person because there is no consent and the money was removed from the actual possession or custody of the person or his immediate pres ence viz the area within his control (C) recognizing that delay of refund deprives plaintiffs of the timevalue of money  and may  deprive plaintiffs of money (D) holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief (E) recognizing that an action will lie for conversion of money when its identification is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the specific money in question or otherwise particularly treat the specific money
answer:
(C)


question:
that RM Kids’s claim was excluded because it suffered “no loss or damage.” Furthermore, as discussed at length in Division 1, supra, Old Republic contends that even if RM Kids has a valid title defect claim, a bona fide dispute exists as to whether the date of any loss, for the purpose of measuring damages, was the date that Peachtree Bank closed on the subject loan rather than the date RM Kids foreclosed on the subject property. And indeed, as we held in Division 1, supra, Old Republic’s contention in this regard was perfectly reasonable. In fact, it proved to be correct. Given these particular circumstances, Old Republic had a reasonable basis to refuse RM Kids’s demand. And as a result, the trial court did not err in granting Old Republic’s motion for summary judgment on this (4) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that payment under settlement agreement between insurer and insureds concerning disputed premium claims was a compromise that did not violate antirebate statute (B) holding that an agreement between insurer and insureds whereby insurer reimbursed insureds for costs of providing insurers administrative services did not violate antirebate statutes where agreements were not offered as an inducement to purchase insurance and reimbursements were reasonable in comparison to services rendered (C) holding that in a dispute between insurer and insured in which the insurer admitted liability hut disputed the amount of damages it was only after entry of a judgment upon that verdict that the claim became liquidated (D) holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith (E) holding that insureds demand to insurer was liquidated when insurer did not point to any evidence at trial in support of its contention that damages were disputed
answer:

(E)