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: in their Constitution, or from the Congress that the Constitution had empowered. We made a similar point in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S., at 416, where we considered a suit against a State in another State’s courts: “This [traditional] explanation [of sovereign immunity] adequately supports the conclusion that no sovereign may be sued in its own courts without its consent, but it affords no support for a claim of immunity in another sovereign’s courts. Such a claim necessarily implicates the power and authority of a second sovereign; its source must be found either in an agreement, express or implied, between the two sovereigns, or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity.” Cf. United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 646 (1892) (<HOLDING>). Subjecting States to federal jurisdiction in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an action cannot be maintained under young in unique circumstances where the suit against the state officer affects an essential attribute of state sovereignty in a manner that the action must be understood as one against the state (B) holding a states regulation of wyoming national guard was insufficient to implicate a special sovereignty interest because of the dual federal and state nature of national guard service (C) recognizing that a suit by the national government against a state does no violence to the inherent nature of sovereignty (D) holding the governors emergency powers to take private property for the public benefit was a special sovereignty interest but the relief requested was not so much of a divestiture of the states sovereignty to render the suit as one against the state itself (E) holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state

A: (C)
****
Q: Cote’s bias, Hayat alleges, first, that Cote made “several inappropriate racial and religious comments during deliberations.” Hayat presented evidence from Jurors L. and B., as well as from Juror H. via an affidavit by Ha-yat’s private investigator, that Cote made a “racial” comment during deliberations. B. declared that “[d]uring the deliberation process, ... Cote[ ] made the statement they all looked the same when wearing a costume or when put in a costume. I believe Mr. Cote made this statement in connection with a discussion of witness Naseem Khan’s claim that he had seen Ayman al-Zawahiri in Lodi.” Similarly, L. stated that “[djuring deliberations Mr. Cote made racial slurs. As an example, on one occasion ... he said in front of the entire group that they a 236-39 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Where, however, “a juror has been asked 
 Holding statements: (A) holding rule 16a1a does not include statements made by coconspirators even if those statements can be attributed to the defendant for purposes of the rule against hearsay (B) holding that rule 606b contains no exception for racially biased statements made during jury deliberations and expressing skepticism about whether constitutional concerns can ever override the rule (C) holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors (D) recognizing rule (E) holding that the arkansas counterpart to cre 606b applies whether a verdict is reached or a mistrial declared and under the extraneous information exception allows jurors to testify about statements made during deliberations

A: (B)
****
Q: at 399. In so holding, the majority of the en banc court rejected the argument of the dissenters that these allegations were insufficient as a matter of law to deter an inmate from pursuing a lawsuit. Id. at 403 (Suhrheinrich, J., dissenting); see also id. at 408 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). In contrast to Bell’s complaints, which presented a close case, the en banc court observed that it “need not pause for long in the case of plaintiff X: his allegations, if true, certainly meet the standard. Harassment, physical threats, and transfer to the area of the prison used to house mentally disturbed inmates, especially combined with the conditions allegedly present there, would likely have a strong deterrent effect.” Id. at 398; 'see also Herron v. Harrison, 203 F.3d 410, 416 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Based upon the foregoing principles, we 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay (B) holding that there was no basis for adverse inference instruction for failure to produce emails until five days before trial (C) holding that the record did not compel a finding of persecution where an alien was detained for five or six days (D) holding that committing prisoner to administrative segregation for five days was adverse (E) holding that due process requires that a hearing be held within a reasonable time after confinement to administrative segregation and finding that five days plainly satisfied this requirement

A:
(D)
****