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.
--------
Question: absence of any effort to serve Bustos with a summons or a complaint, the Receiver cannot claim substantial compliance with Rule 4. The Receiver’s failure even to attempt to comply with Rule 4 is no “minor defect,” United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir.1984), that can be remedied by actual notice. More importantly, the difficulty here runs deeper than mere insufficient service of process. The Receiver never filed a complaint and never named Bustos as a party. In other words, the Receiver never commenced an action against Bustos, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 3; it simply named Bustos in a motion for the disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains earned through the sale of unregistered securities. See In re Alpha Telcom, 2004 WL 3142555, at *1 (<HOLDING>). Prior to Bustos’s intervention in the action, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons (B) holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons (C) holding that a title vii cause of action is limited to those discrimination allegations in the complaint that have been under the scrutiny of a formal eeoc complaint (D) holding that a formal summons and complaint were unnecessary because the motion before the court is not an independent action (E) holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service

Answer: (D)


Question: completed his nine month term of incarceration and was released from custody on Jply 28, 2017. Any challenge to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of his term' of confinement is thus moot. See United States v. Probber, 170 F.3d 345, 347-49 (2d Cir. 1999) (dismissing as moot an appeal from a judgment revoking supervised release where defendant had already completed his term of confinement). However, because defendant would still be entitled to a reduction of his term of supervised release if the court were to find such a reduction appropriate, we will analyze whether, as defendant claims, the supervised release component of the District Court’s sentence was either procedurally or substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Mazza Alaluf, 621 F.3d 205, 213 (2d Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Defendant contends that the District Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding substantive reasonableness sentencing challenge to be moot when defendant had completed prison sentence but addressing challenge to supervised release conditions (B) holding that where trial court did not inform defendant of supervised release term during plea colloquy but did advise defendant of term in presentence report and at sentencing defendants sentence stands (C) holding that a statute requiring a threeyear term of supervised release did not eviscerate the district courts discretion to adjust the term of supervised release pursuant to  3583e (D) holding that a completed term of confinement did not render a challenge to the reasonableness of a sentence moot where defendant could receive a reduced term of supervised release (E) holding defendant convicted under  841b1a may receive lifetime term of supervised release

Answer: (D)


Question: or development.” Id at 489-90. Applying this interpretation of what constitutes “internal tribal matters,” we held that the Penob-scot Nation’s operation of beano games was “fundamentally unlike” the listed internal tribal matters, was “not embraced within the general term” of “internal tribal matters”, and was, therefore, subject to enforcement under state law. Id. [¶ 16] In Great Northern Paper, we did not discuss the ejusdem generis approach taken in Stilphen. Instead, we adopted the non-exclusive, non-dispositive factors described in Akins v. Penobscot Nation, 130 F.3d 482, 486-87 (1st Cir.1997), and we reviewed legislative history, to aid in determining whether the disputed issue related to an internal tribal matter. Great N. Paper, 2001 ME 68, ¶ 48-50, 60, 770 A.2d at 588-89, 591 (<HOLDING>). The factors applied in Great Northern Paper 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government (B) holding that the maine freedom of access act does not apply pursuant to section 62061 to the tribes internal conduct of their government but does apply when the tribe communicates and interacts with other governments (C) holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government (D) holding that the ada amendments act does not apply to preamendment conduct (E) holding that section 102 of the civil rights act of 1991 does not apply to preenactment conduct

Answer:
(B)