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.

with our ability to review the sentence imposed by the district court for substantive reasonableness because, on review, we must compare the sentence imposed with the correctly calculated Guidelines sentencing range. He contends the relevant Guidelines sentencing range is the post-departure Guidelines sentencing range. But it is the pre-departure Guidelines sentencing range that the district court must correctly calculate and that we must use when we review a sentence for substantive reasonableness. See United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 987 (9th Cir.2006) (“[W]e elect to review the district court’s application of the advisory sentencing guidelines only insofar as they do not involve departures.”); see also United States v. Tankersley, 537 F.3d 1100, 1114 n. 11 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). We used the pre-departure sentence for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause (B) holding that a fee application based on claims that were interrelated nonfrivolous and raised in good faith may still be excessive where the applicant achieved only partial or limited success (C) holding forbearance to sue is a good consideration for a promise founded thereon and it is only essential that the claim be asserted in good faith (D) holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law (E) holding mohamed is still good law
(E)

of his criminal history and likelihood of reoffending. Currie notes that most of his prior convictions were remote and that he has demonstrated both a decrease in criminal behavior since 1990 and a decrease in violent conduct since 2006. However, the vast majority of Currie’s adult life has been spent in prison, undermining his argument that his reduction in criminal convictions during this period is indicative of reduced criminality. Notably, Currie’s dozens of institutional would impose the same sentence as a variance sentence, even if it erred in its Guidelines calculations or application of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a). And although Currie identified nonfrivolous mitigating factors in support of a lower sentence, see, e.g., United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 532-33 (4th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>), we cannot conclude, in view of the totality 
 Holding statements: (A) holding as a matter of law that a child of the tender age of 3 years and 8 months could not have realized the risk or danger of an artificial body of water (B) holding that adea plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of age discrimination when he was replaced by someone only two years younger and within the protected age group and there was no other evidence of age discriminatory motive (C) recognizing reduced culpability in youthful offenders and inverse correlation between inmates age and risk of recidivism (D) holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference (E) holding age discrimination claim barred
(C)

a “John Doe” petition involves an unknown defendant, for limitations purposes, it should be treated the same as a petition involving misidentification. Misidentification is distinct from misnomer. Ense in distinction between misnomer and misidentification is whether the correct party received notice of the suit). 3. Policy Reasons Why A “John Doe” Petition Should Not Toll Limitations Unless Authorized By Statute. Finally, statutes of limitations would have little, if any, import if they could easily be circumvented by filing a “John Doe” petition. See Thomas v. Process Equip. Corp., 154 Mich.App. 78, 397 N.W.2d 224, 226 (Mich.Ct.App.1986). Statutes of limitations are designed to compel the assertion of claims within a reasonable time so the opposing party has P.2d 343, 345 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Huggard v. Wake County Hosp. Sys., Inc., 102 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that allowing john doe complaint to toll limitations where defendant had no notice of suit before limitations expired would impair defendants ability to timely investigate accident scene marshal evidence and locate witnesses (B) holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim (C) holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed (D) holding there is no authority to toll statute of limitations based on mental incompetence (E) holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations

(A)