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.

Example Input: this authority explicitly by statute in 11 U.S.C. § 362. Nor is there any danger of the bankruptcy court having prejudiced Appellant’s rights under Puerto Rico common law. As the bankruptcy court itself stated, the Appellant remains free to present her arguments under Puerto Rico law at the appropriate time, during the foreclosure proceedings in Puerto Rico’s commonwealth courts. (See Hearing Tr., Docket No. 1-7 at 11.) Therefore, any attempts to link this case to the holding in Stem are mistaken. We reject Appellant’s attempt to challenge this routine and plainly constitutional exercise of the bankruptcy court’s authority. This case, thus, fits squarely with several other cases that have been resolved in the wake of Stem. See In Re DiVittorio, 670 F.3d 273, 282 n. 4 (1st Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); In Re Garcia, 471 B.R. 324, 329 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that stem did not change a bankruptcy courts authority to decide questions impacting whether to grant relief from automatic stay (B) holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay (C) holding that the bankruptcy court relinquishes jurisdiction over estate property when it grants relief from the automatic stay (D) recognizing district courts authority to dispose of contempt action for violation of automatic stay of bankruptcy (E) holding that bankruptcy court order that a stay applied to a particular party was a final order and noting that bankruptcy court orders lifting or denying relief from an automatic stay are final for purposes of appeal
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: rely on a warrant to search a house where the warrant affidavit stated that there was marijuana growing near the house and that there was a road from the house to the marijuana). Of course, the information in the affidavit does not eliminate the possibility that the marijuana came from somewhere else. The affidavit states that the trash was found at the end of a lane that dumped out into a rural highway. Admittedly, the trash could have been flung out the window of a passing car, or it could have fallen off the back of a garbage truck. However, when it comes to probable cause, the name says it all; certainty is never required, only a fair probability. When the issue is one of good-faith reliance, even less is necessary. See United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The affidavit must simply bear some indicia 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that magistrate must have substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists (B) holding that plaintiff was required to plead and prove the absence of probable cause to support his bivens claim (C) holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity (D) holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question (E) holding that leon requires a less demanding showing than the substantial basis threshold required to prove the existence of probable cause in the first place
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: Bobo, 820 N.W.2d at 516 (describing an evidentiary hearing as “the means for evaluating the credibility of a witness” (emphasis added)). Moreover, even if the dissent’s strict definition of what constitutes a “recanta tion” were correct, the Larrison standard applies broadly to all allegations of false trial testimony, not just to witness recantations, Pippitt, 737 N.W.2d at 227, so the dissent’s metaphysical discussion of recantations is ultimately beside the point. Thus, no matter how we label Caldwell’s allegations-as allegedly false testimony or as recantations — the Larrison standard requires us to examine the substance of the witnesses’ statements, rather than how the witnesses characterize their statements, to determine whether they may have testified falsely at trial. See id. (<HOLDING>). It is the substance of the conflicting 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an ontherecord evidentiary hearing is necessary when the trial court is asked to rule in limine that a witness cannot be asked questions to show that he is biased prejudiced interested in the outcome of the proceeding or has a motive to testify falsely (B) holding that attorneys testimony was not relevant to any issues contained in the appellants pleadings and that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the attorneys testimony could not be gained from any other witness or source (C) holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing (D) holding that not only the employees testimony at the grievance hearing but also the affidavit that he filed and his agreement to be listed as a potential witness were entitled to protection (E) holding following an evidentiary hearing that the first larrison prong was not satisfied when a witness claimed that he had testified falsely at trial but failed to provide any details or otherwise demonstrate which parts of his testimony were false
Example Output:
(E)