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]: and the weapons charge, for which he was sentenced to a concurrent term of five years’ imprisonment. Jackson appealed to this court. LAW/ANALYSIS I. Exclusion of Evidence Jackson argues the trial court erred in excluding his testimony about his personal knowledge of Felder’s violent history. We disagree. The admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion, and an appellate court may only disturb a ruling admitting or excluding evidence upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice. State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429, 632 S.E.2d 845, 847-48 (2006). Generally, the failure to make a proffer of excluded evidence will preclude review on appeal. State v. Santiago, 370 S.C. 153, 163, 634 S.E.2d 23, 29 (Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). Where no proffer of excluded testimony is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that objection to testimony at trial on grounds that testimony was irrelevant highly prejudicial and below the threshold requirement of admissibility does not preserve appellate challenge that testimony constitutes inadmissi ble victimimpact testimony (B) holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked (C) holding that we could not weigh the prejudice suffered as a result of the exclusion of plaintiffs testimony because we had no way of knowing what the plaintiffs testimony would have been (D) holding a proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been (E) holding that the trial courts statement it would deny the defendants request to make a bill at this time did not discharge the appellants duty to proffer the excluded testimony for preservation of error
[A]: (D)


[Q]: nonetheless entitled to claim derivative asylum relief based on the possibility that their citizen child would be subjected to FGM. In so assuming, the majority’s remand is illusory. Although the practice of FGM is considered persecution under our law, there is no threat here since a United States citizen child cannot be deported to the country of her parents’ birth, and the parents cannot claim an unrecognized form of derivative relief when they themselves cannot establish entitlement to asylum. By usurping the prerogative of Congress, which alone has the power to create a new basis for cancellation of removal, the majority violates the separation of powers doctrine and creates an unnecessary conflict with the Seventh Circuit. See Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Like the petitioner in Oforji, Mr. and Mrs. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review (B) holding that an alien parent may not establish a derivative claim for asylum by pointing to potential hardship to the aliens united states citizen child in the event of the aliens deportation (C) holding that inconsistencies in the aliens statements must go to the heart of the asylum claim to justify an adverse credibility finding (D) holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel (E) holding that the crime of bringing aliens to the united states is complete when the initial transporter who brings the aliens to the united states ceases to transport them
[A]: (B)


[Q]: immunity and sent the plaintiff to pursue her claim in tribal court. See 436 U.S. at 58-59, 98 S.Ct. 1670; see also Nero v. Cherokee Nation, 892 F.2d 1457, 1461 (10th Cir.1989) (noting the Santa Clara Pueblo distinction between a substantive constraint and an abrogation of sovereign immunity). Absent explicit and unequivocal language to the contrary, the imposition of substantive constraints upon a tribe’s sovereignty cannot be interpreted as an abrogation of its sovereign immunity. We must determine for ourselves whether anything in the Thirteenth Amendment or the 1866 Treaty worked an abrogation of the Cherokee Nation’s sovereign immunity. Again, we will only acknowledge such an abrogation if the text is express and unequivocal. See Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 59, 98 S.Ct. 1670 (<HOLDING>); Fla. Paraplegic, Ass’n v. Miccosukee Tribe, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a tribes membership requirements violated icra and noting that a tribes right to define its own membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community (B) holding the icra not to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity because nothing on the face of title i of the icra purports to subject tribes to the jurisdiction of the federal courts in civil actions for injunctive or declaratory relief (C) holding the copyright act not to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity where nothing on the statutes face could be so construed (D) holding the americans with disabilities act not to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity and declaring congress abrogates tribal immunity only where the definitive language of the statute itself states an intent either to abolish indian tribes common law immunity or to subject tribes to suit under the act (E) holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity
[A]:
(B)