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.

a hearing mandated if he can show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from failure to hold a federal evidentiary hearing.” Id. at 12, 112 S.Ct. 1715. It appears, however, that AEDPA overruled the “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception, and that at this time, district courts cannot order evi-dentiary hearings unless the requirements of § 2254(e)(2) are met. See Shumate v. Newland, 75 F.Supp.2d 1076, 1084, 1098-99 (N.D.Cal.1999) (“AEDPA, however, has ‘reduced considerably the degree of the district court’s discretion’ by imposing threshold requirements that must be met before a request for an evidentiary hearing may be entertained.”) (quoting Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir.1999)); Rodriguez v. Zavaras, 42 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1054-55 (D.Colo.1999) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Porter v. Gramley, 112 F.3d 1308, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional (B) holding that evidentiary hearing not necessary where proposed administrative action is based on undisputed material facts (C) holding that aedpa did not codify keeney but instead significantly curtails the availability of evidentiary hearings to develop material facts (D) holding that when a state has given petitioner a full and fair hearing on a claim and he has failed to develop material facts to support it he is not entitled to develop further facts in a federal habeas evidentiary hearing unless he demonstrates either cause for the failure and prejudice resulting therefrom or a fundamental miscarriage of justice (E) holding that an evidentiary hearing may be used to develop the factual basis of a prisoner complaint
(C)

CBL claim that if the merger is effected, the public will be harmed because Sparrow Hospital will no longer provide late re at the incipiency and block the merger. This court does not find irreparable injury will result from not enjoining the merger because this court sees a very minimal probability that a divestiture would ever be warranted in the future. For reasons that will be explained infra, this court is of the opinion that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits. Also, plaintiffs claim that if the merger is not enjoined they may lose standing to challenge it, thereby suffering irreparable harm. This court finds no merit in this contention. In making this argument, plaintiffs rely on the case of Arrow-Hart & Hegeman Electric 477, 97 S.Ct. 690, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) (<HOLDING>). For instance, as described above, GLASCCO and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim (B) holding that plaintiff must show antitrust injury meaning injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and which flows from defendants unlawful acts (C) holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation (D) holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing (E) holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit
(E)

factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Tenry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted). Moncriefs argument concerning the timeliness of her failure to promote claim is unavailing. To state a timely Title VII claim, a plaintiff must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the allegedly discriminatory employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). The most recent date upon which Moncrief was denied a promotion was April 2002, and she filed her EEOC charge in May 2004, more than two years later. Therefore, this claim was time-barred, and the district court correctly dismissed it. See Alleyne v. American Airlines, Inc., 548 F.3d 219, 220 (2d Cir.2008)(per curiam) (<HOLDING>). As to Moncriefs wrongful termination claim, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party must file an eeoc charge within 180 days from the date the unlawful act occurred or lose the ability to recover for it (B) holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge pursuant to  706 of title vii 42 usc  2000e5 did not toll the statute of limitations for an action brought on the same facts under 42 usc  1981 (C) holding that the conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii (D) recognizing that under 42 usc  2000e5el a title vii claim is timely where the eeoc charge was filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice (E) holding that statute of limitations barred title vii claim where the plaintiff would have been aware of discrimination more than 300 days before eeoc charge filed

(D)