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.

Input: Consider Input: as an exhibit, he was able to make his argument that the victim was vindictive towards defendant. Accordingly, even if the trial court erred in this respect, we are not persuaded that it is more probable than not that any such error was outcome determinative. (MCOA Op. at 5.) Petitioner contends that, by barring the introduction of the actual letters sent by Gordon and barring cross-examination that quoted those letters, the trial court prevented him from effectively cross-examining Gordon about her bias and motive for giving false evidence against him. I disagree. Unlike in Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, the trial court did not “prohibit! ] all inquiry” into Gordon’s possible bias and motivation to lie. Id. (emphasis in original); see also Vasquez, 496 F.3d at 571 (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Petitioner’s representations, he 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing this distinction (B) recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel (C) recognizing distinction between barring all inquiry into a witness bias and barring a particular form of crossexamination (D) recognizing distinction between two types of waiver (E) recognizing distinction between smith and mcdonnell

Output: (C)


Input: Consider Input: despite the underlying circumstances. See United States v. Moudy, 132 F.3d 618, 620 (10th Cir.1998) (stating that “[ejvery escape scenario is a powder keg, which may or may not explode into violence and result in physical injury to someone at any given time, but which always has the serious potential to do so” and that this characterization applies “to all escapes, whether or not violence was actually involved”) (citing United States v. Gosling, 39 F.3d 1140, 1142 (10th Cir.1994)). C. Sixth Amendment Claim Finally, Mr. Flowers argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by failing to submit the fact of his prior convictions to a jury. This argument is also foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1223, 1226 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM Mr. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the fact of prior convictions under  924e need not be charged in an indictment and proven to a jury and also that the government need not charge in an indictment and prove to a jury that a defendants prior conviction constitutes a violent felony under  924e (B) holding that district court may enhance sentence based on fact of prior convictions under  924e regardless of whether admitted by defendant or found by jury (C) holding that facts regarding prior convictions need not be charged in an indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (D) holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (E) holding that elements of statute which became  924e need not be reflected in indictment for crime charged

Output: (A)


Input: Consider Input: Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1195-96 (Del.1992)). 10 . Hallowell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 443 A.2d 925, 926 (Del.1982). 11 . Id. 12 . 18 Del. C. § 3902(b). 13 . Frank v. Horizon Assur. Co., 553 A.2d 1199, 1201-02 (Del.1989) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Abramowicz, 386 A.2d 670, 673 (Del.1978)). 14 . Temple, 2000 WL 33113814, at *6. 15 . Temple, 782 A.2d 267, 2001 WL 760864, at *1. 16 . Adams-Baez, 2005 WL 2436220, at *3. 17 . Appellant’s Amended Opening Br. at 28. 18 . White v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 975 A.2d 786, 790-91 (Del.2009) (alteration in original) (omission in original) (quoting Account v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 780 A.2d 245, 248 (Del.2001)). 19 . White, 975 A.2d at 788. 20 . Id. at 789. 21 . See Eaquinta v. Allstate Ins. Co., 125 P.3d 901, 904 n. 5 (Utah 2005) (<HOLDING>). 22 . Gloe v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 694 N.W.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that premature payment of estate taxes was not a recoverable loss in a wrongful death action because the test is a measurement of benefits of pecuniary value that the decedent might have been expected to contribute to the surviving spouse and children had the decedent lived (B) recognizing the majority rule (C) recognizing that a majority of courts hold that uim benefits for wrongful death are not available for a noninsured decedent (D) holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute (E) recognizing cause of action for wrongful death


Output: (C)