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: that he was on S.L.’s property, and he admitted that he took cigarettes and a lighter from the patio table. According to the recorded statement that Andrus gave to Detective Le-wállen, after' entering S.L.’s garage, An-drus changed his mind about being on S.L.’s property and decided to leave. The evidence at trial shows that Andrus did not have permission to be on the property or in S.L.’s garage or breezeway. Given the circumstances proven by the evidence admitted during Andrus’s trial, the jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that Andrus, when entering the garage or breezeway, intended to commit theft under a standard of beyond reasonable doubt even if he later changed his mind - about committing a crime. See Mauldin v. State, 628 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (<HOLDING>); Solis v. State, 589 S.W.2d 444, 446 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defendants plea to indictment alleging 8000 theft was not an admission to the theft amount (B) holding that against her will in the rape statute means without her consent and that the fact that the victim was under the age of consent was sufficient to establish that element (C) holding that the defendants entry into the building having been made in the nighttime without the consent of the owner is sufficient to show an intent to commit theft (D) holding that the plaintiff must show felonious intent to commit theft in order to establish a violation of section 8120141 (E) holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile

A: (C)
****
Q: Inc., No. 08 Civ. 5653(PAC), 2011 WL 3874821 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011) ("NJ v. DLJ"); NJ Carpenters, 272 F.R.D. 160 (finding Rule 23(a) requirements were met, but not Rule 23(b)(3) requirements). 59 . DI 294, at 30-33. 60 . Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., 714 F.Supp.2d 475, 484 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (stating Section 12(a)(2) standing is limited to “persons who have directly purchased the securities from underwriting defendants in the subject public offering(s), and not in the secondary market”); In re Sterling Foster & Co., Inc., Sec. Litig., 222 F.Supp.2d 216, 244 (E.D.N.Y.2002) ("[P]urchasers in private or secondary market offerings are precluded from bringing actions under Section 12(a)(2).”). 61 . DI 294, at 30; DI 300, at 17. 62 . See IndyMac I, 718 F.Supp.2d at 513 (<HOLDING>). 63 . This of course means that it does not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party waived the claims she failed to pursue in her merit brief (B) holding that because  544b1 provides only the power of avoidance it does not confer authority on the trustee to pursue state law damage claims but that the trustee could pursue such claims under  544a1 or 2 if the claims could have been asserted by the debtor corporation (C) holding pinter analysis to apply to claims arising under  12a2 (D) holding that a trustee had no standing to pursue claims of fraud against the debtors accountant because under connecticut law those claims belonged to investors (E) holding wyoming only had standing to pursue section 12a2 claims as to indx 2006ar11

A: (E)
****
Q: S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). When plaintiffs assert a claim based on threatened or future injury, however, they must show that the injury is so imminent as to be “certainly impending.” Pub. Interest Research Group v. Magnesium Elektron, Inc., 123 F.3d 111, 122 (3d Cir.1997) (quoting Whitmore v. Ark., 495 U.S. 149, 155-58, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990)). Here, the challenged Ordinance itself is not the injury Plaintiffs complain of, but, by allowing development on that parcel of land, the Ordinance increases the risk that Plaintiffs aesthetic and recreational interests will be harmed. Numerous courts have held that increased risk of future injury is sufficient to establish imminency of injury for purposes of standing. See Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625, 633 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In a case involving increased risk of harm, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff meets the injuryinfact requirement for standing if he faces a credible threat of harm and that harm is both real and immediate not conjectural or hypothetical (B) recognizing that while in a diversity case a federal court may not address the plaintiffs claim unless the plaintiff has standing to sue under state law the plaintiff must also meet article iii standing requirements (C) recognizing that standing is an essential component of our appellate jurisdiction and permitting party to appeal only after determining that they had met the requirements of article iii standing (D) holding noneconomic harm satisfies article iii standing requirements (E) holding that plaintiff had standing based on increased risk of contracting an illness and citing the followingfriends of the earth inc v gaston copper recycling corp 204 f3d 149 160 4th cir2000 en banc concluding that tjhreats or increased risk constitutes cognizable harm sufficient to meet the injuryinfact requirement central delta water agency v united states 306 f3d 938 94748 9th cir2002 holding that the possibility of future injury may be sufficient to confer standing on plaintiffs and concluding that plaintiffs could proceed with their suit where they raised a material question of fact  as to whether they will suffer a substantial risk of harm as a result of the governments policies johnson v allsteel inc 259 f3d 885 888 7th cir2001 holding that the increased risk that a plan participant faces as a result of an erisa plan administrators increase in discretionary authority satisfies article iii injuryinfact requirements walters v edgar 163 f3d 430 434 7th cir1998 reasoning that a probabilistic harm if nontrivial can support standing cert denied 526 us 1146 119 sct 2022 143 led2d 1033 1999 mountain states legal found v glickman 92 f3d 1228 123435 dccir1996 recognizing that an incremental increase in the risk of forest fires caused by the forest services action satisfied article iii standing requirements

A:
(E)
****