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]: 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
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In Landgraf, the Court noted that a statute only truly operates retroactively if applying it would “impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Id. 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also RTC v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 30 F.3d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir.1994)(analyzing retroactivity of lease repudiation damage limitation provision of FIRREA). Thus, like other courts that have analyzed similar FIRREA provisions, we must address prior banking law to determine whether application of the damage limitation provisions of § 1821(e)(3) would have the retroactive effect defined in Landgraf. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit, 30 F.3d at 1388 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that, in the Crafts’ case, it 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is not retroactive (B) holding that firreas damage limitations for repudiation of leases worked no substantive change in the law and thus their application was not retroactive (C) holding retroactive application (D) holding no retroactive application (E) recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: door unlocked and no guard posted. Throughout the interview he was given several bathroom breaks and was offered food and drink. Defendant was cooperative and allowed investigators to examine his shoes. Although detectives encouraged defendant to tell the truth, they did not raise their voices and they neither threatened defendant nor wheedled statements from him with promises. Defendant was never misled, deceived, or confronted with false evidence. Once defendant implicated himself by acknowledging his direct participation in the killing, the interview ended and defendant was given his Miranda rights. Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial court that defendant was not formally arrested or otherwise subjected 1997); State v. Lane, 334 N.C. 148, 154, 431 S.E.2d 7, 10 (1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Phipps, 331 N.C. 427, 443-45, 418 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that accused was not in custody when told he was not under arrest and was free to leave and did in fact freely leave the interview (B) holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave (C) holding that appellants complaint on appeal that the environment was coercive did not change the fact that he was not in custody when he voluntarily went to the police station was told several times he could leave and did leave after the interrogation (D) holding that a defendant who voluntarily rode to the station with officers in a police car waited in a lobby with unlocked external doors and was told more than once he was not under arrest was not in custody (E) holding that a defendant who was told several times he was not under arrest and who never asked to leave during an interview with investigators was not in custody
[EX A]:
(E)