instruction:
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:
constitutionally obstruct despite the provision of counsel. Indeed, in Benjamin v. Fraser, when considering impediments to pre-trial detainees’ ability to visit with counsel, we recognized that a state could not “ ‘unjustifiably obstruct the availability of professional representation or other aspects of the right of access to the courts.’ ” Benjamin 264 F.3d at 187, 188 (emphasis added) (quoting Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 419, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974) and determining that “both the due process right of access to the courts and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel are implicated,” and that there was no error in measures ordered to remedy undue delays associated with attorney visits). See also Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477, 480-81, 83 S.Ct. 768, 9 L.Ed.2d 892 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Nor can I agree with the majority’s holding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding same for writ of error coram nobis (B) holding that rule 4as time limits govern an appeal from a district court order granting or denying a petition for a writ of error coram nobis (C) holding that the state could not deny an indigent criminal appellant a transcript to appeal pro se from the denial of a writ of error coram nobis or permit that the appellant at the will of the public defender be entirely cut off from any appeal at all (D) holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner (E) holding that in the absence of a valid excuse for delay a coram nobis petition is subject to denial
answer:
(C)


question:
diligent effort' requires such pointed measures as an examination of telephone company records, utility company records, and records maintained by the county treasurer, county recorder, or similar ree-ord keepers."). {47 Here, the motion for publication Brown filed in 1978 states that "search has been made of the public records of the County of Weld and County of Morgan, State of Colorado." Such a search, if undertaken with reasonable diligence, should have resulted in the discovery of the 1950 Deeds, as they were readily available matters of public record and part of the relevant chain of title. Each document identified Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the city of the Gadbois' residence. Brown could-and should-have discovered this information. See In re Colon, 563 F.3d 1171, 1178 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) 4 48 Sunﬂarly, Brown could-and should-have 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that implied easement arose because each deed in chain of title referenced community plan (B) holding that a typographical error in a security deed does not necessarily invalidate the legal description when the deed also referred to the propertys physical address (C) holding that trustees have a duty to exercise the same judgment and prudence that a careful owner would exercise in the sale of his own property (D) recognizing that a per son exercising reasonable prudence and diligence in examining propertys chain of title would have located a deed containing a misstatement in its descmptlon of the property (E) recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title
answer:
(D)


question:
appellant could only be guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime if he intended that crime to be accomplished. Logic dictates, however, and this Court has recognized that it is impossible for one to intend to commit an unintentional act.” 833 A.2d at 796 (citing Commonwealth v. Spells, 417 Pa.Super. 233, 612 A.2d 458, 461 n. 5 (1992) (“[a]n attempt to commit murder can only constitute an attempt to commit murder of the first degree, because both second and third degree murder are unintended results of a specific intent to commit a felony or serious bodily harm, not to kill”)). See also Commonwealth v. Barnyak, 432 Pa.Super. 483, 639 A.2d 40, 45 n. 5 (1994) (noting that there is no crime of attempted third-degree murder); Commonwealth v. Griffin, 310 Pa.Super. 39, 456 A.2d 171, 177 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Although this Court has not yet spoken to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because statutory variants of an underlying crime are not elements of an attempt to commit the underlying crime jurors are not required to unanimously find which specific statutory variant the defendant intended to commit it is sufficient that they unanimously conclude that the defendant intended to commit any of the applicable statutory variants (B) holding that an individual cannot attempt to commit murder of the second or third degree because the crime of attempt is a specific intent crime and an attempt to commit second or third degree murder would require proof that the individual intended to perpetrate an unintentional killing which is logically impossible (C) holding that a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree depravedmind murder could not stand under current case law because conspiracy requires both intent to agree and intent to commit the offense which is the object of the conspiracy and depravedmind murder is an unintentional killing resulting from highly reckless behavior (D) holding that firstdegree murder is one crime although the defendant can commit the crime in several ways (E) holding different rule applicable for conviction of second degree murder
answer:

(B)