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.

of the statute, the FDA’s regulations, the FDA’s internal interpretation, and precedent all demonstrate that a sterilizer for dental hand-pieces is a “device” as that term is defined in 21 U.S.C. § 321(h). That being so, both SteriSafe and its accessory SteriDot are within the jurisdiction of the FFDCA. Defendant nevertheless posits three reasons why SteriSafe and SteriDot are not devices. First, defendant argues that the government failed to prove that dental handpieces transmit disease and, thus, that SteriSafe actually prevents disease. Such proof is not required. Congress had two purposes in enacting' the FFDCA: (1) to regulate products that actually prevent disease, and (2) to regulate products that falsely claim that they prevent disease. Because of those d 1006 (9th Cir.1952) (<HOLDING>). Defendant next argues that the Steri-Safe is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the doctor who submitted an expert report did not demonstrate knowledge of cancer treatment he was not qualified to offer an opinion that an earlier diagnosis could have produced a better outcome for the plaintiff (B) holding that a machine that allegedly eliminated lumps from womens breasts was governed by the ffdca even though expert witnesses expressed the unanimous belief that appellants instruments are useless for diagnosis or treatment of any human ailment (C) holding the expert witnesses were protected by witness immunity to ensure expert objectivity (D) holding in a case where there was no evidence that the expert was incompetent or that the petitioners lawyers had any reason to question the experts professional qualifications that it was objectively reasonable for  trial counsel to rely upon the experts diagnosis (E) holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law
(B)

testified that he examined bullets and casings found at both S & A Food Store and Fast Freddy’s. He concluded that the .9 millimeter used in the S & A offense was also fired during the Fast Freddy’s offense. Therefore, the State’s evidence showed a strong correlation between the S & A offense and the Fast Freddy’s offense, providing both intent and identity evidence in the Fast Freddy’s offense and eliminating the need for the Vogt Street offense. c. No Need for Vogt Street Offense The evidence outlined above shows that the State’s evidence of Russell’s intent in the Fast Freddy’s offense was strong; therefore, the need for the extraneous Vogt Street offense was minimal at best. See Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 390; Graff v. State, 65 S.W.3d 730, 740 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet ref'd) (<HOLDING>). The State’s evidence showing Russell’s intent 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the cumulative effect of the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant constructively possessed the methamphetamine laboratory discovered in a bedroom she shared with a renter (B) holding that methamphetamine retained for personal use by the defendant who had been convicted of conspiracy to distribute the substance and never argued any of the methamphetamine was lawfully obtained was properly considered contraband with which he was directly involved and therefore relevant conduct (C) holding that the enhancement applied where the defendant possessed a firearm in connection with possessing methamphetamine (D) holding the state did not need this evidence of possession of 147 boxes of cold pills used to manufacture methamphetamine because the state had other convincing evidence to establish the defendants intent to deliver methamphetamine (E) holding that the state is not allowed to suppress evidence but it need not collect evidence for the defendant
(D)

See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(b)(1)(A), 300aa-11(c)(1)(A); see also Schafer, 20 F.3d at 7; Head v. Sec’y of Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 26 Cl.Ct. 546, 547 n. 1 (1992), aff'd, 996 F.2d 318 (Fed.Cir.1993). In this case, neither Plaintiff alleges to have “suffered a relevant injury ... after he or she received a vaccine.” Nor have Plaintiffs asserted any claims in a representative capacity. Therefore, the Vaccine Act’s requirement that petitioners file a Program petition prior to a lawsuit does not bar Plaintiffs from filing the instant action against the Vaccine Manufacturers. See Schafer, 20 F.3d at 5 (explaining that the Vaccine Act’s tort suit ban does not apply to individuals who cannot file petition in the Vaccine Court except in a representative capacity); Head, 26 Cl.Ct. at 550 (<HOLDING>); McDonald v. Lederle Labs., 341 N.J. Super. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that mother who neither owned vehicle in question nor had control over her daughter could not be liable as a matter of law for damages caused by daughters negligent driving (B) holding that an amendment by a plaintiff to allege a claim in her representative capacity as adminis trator of estate under federal law related back to claims brought in her individual capacity under state law such an amendment was not equivalent to the commencement of a new cause of action so as to subject the amendment to the statute of limitations (C) holding that an award to a mother in her individual capacity in an action arising from vaccinerelated injuries received by her daughter did not bar the daughters subsequent action under the vaccine act (D) holding that daughter had no express authority to sign arbitration agreement for mother where no power of attorney and daughter did not discuss signing the agreement with her mother (E) holding that trial court properly terminated fathers obligation to support his seventeenyearold daughter who refused to live with father but instead chose to reside in her own apartment after her mother moved out of state where daughter offered no justifiable reason for not living with her father daughter only contended that her stepmother was too neat for her and that she wanted to live closer to her friends

(C)