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]: process.” Final Rule Establishing an Administrative Appeal Process for the Regulatory Program of the Corps of Engineers, 65 Fed. Reg. at 16488. Additionally, the preamble notes that, because physical circum stances can change over time, "JDs are not necessarily 'final' even as an administrative matter.” Id. Based on the foregoing, it seems rather doubtful that the Corps’ decision to certify Dr. Booth’s delineation constituted a final determination entitled to preclusive effect. See Zurcher v. Bilton, 379 S.C. 132, 135, 666 S.E.2d 224, 226 (2008) (issue preclusion applies when an issue has been "actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment”) (emphasis added). 10 . See Chasm Hydro, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 58 A.D.3d 1100, 872 N.Y.S.2d 235 (2009) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 107 S.Ct. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding local regulation of hazardous waste disposal facilities preempted by comprehensive and detailed state regulatory scheme (B) holding that federal power act and cwa largely preempted the field of regulating hydroelectric facilities (C) holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance (D) holding that subsequent congressional statute regulating registration of aliens retroactively preempted state law (E) holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: ones in the present case, are capable of sustaining “direct physical loss or damage.” The definition of “physical,” as provided in the Oxford English Dictionary, is “[o]f or relating to natural phenomena perceived through the senses (as opposed to the mind); of or relating to matter or the material world; natural; tangible, conCrete.” Oxford English Dictionary, Ohio courts have recognized that “[m]oney deposited in a fund is intangible property,” Walther v. Central Trust Co., N.A., 70 Ohio App.3d 26, 32, 590 N.E.2d 375 (Ohio Ct.App.1990), and that “[i]ntangible personal property, by its very nature, is not capable of being physically possessed.” Denezza v. Denezza, 1996 WL 111812, *2, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 935, at *5 (Ct.App. Mar. 15, 1996) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); see also Falck v. United States, 2005 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing limited partnership interest as intangible personal property (B) recognizing that property not subject to physical seizure such as mutual fund shares are intangible property (C) recognizing that the government may seek a personal judgment specific property or substitute property (D) holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property (E) recognizing that partnership property is a type of ownership
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: exhaustion of administrative remedies, petition for writ of mandamus may be filed in Leon County, Florida); Stovall v. Cooper, 860 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(petition for writ of mandamus as to gain time lies against the Department of Corrections in the county wherein which the DOC keeps its headquarters, i.e., Leon County). The record reflects that Borroto was sentenced to nine months in the Dade County jail in case number 01-25640 on July 22, 2002, and to nine months in the Dade County jail in case number 01-26153 on August 9, 2002. In each instance, the trial court ordered and the defendant received all credit for time served. The State concedes that Borroto has satisfied the sentence requirements in both cases, as he was entitled to 332 days for time served in case A 1995)(<HOLDING>). We note that based upon the attachments to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that after exhausting administrative remedies if the defendant believes the department of corrections ruling is incorrect he may file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court for the second judicial circuit leon county florida (B) holding that a plaintiff may not avoid exhausting the administrative remedies by requesting money damages (C) holding that a procedural default in exhausting administrative remedies bars relief in federal court (D) holding a claim not previously raised or ruled on by the circuit court was waived in an appeal from the denial of a writ of mandamus (E) holding that defendant seeking credit for time served must exhaust administrative remedies within the department of corrections prior to seeking judicial relief
[EX A]:
(A)