TASK DEFINITION: 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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: to allege damages through June 30, 2006 is the focus of their motion.”). Because the Government does not oppose Plaintiff supplementing the September 4, 2009 Complaint to seek damages through the end of 2009, the issue before the court is whether Plaintiff may supplement to allege a claim for damages incurred through December 31, 2009, or through December 31, 2010. See System Fuels, 73 Fed.Cl. at 211 (“Supplementation may be limited or curtailed to avoid prejudice.” (citation omitted)). Although Plaintiff may have given the Government an estimate of 2010 damages as early as July 2010, Plaintiff did not identify the specific 2010 damages claimed or provide the Government with supporting documentation of those damages until April 20, 2011 — t 4 Fed.Cl. 727 (2006) (“SMUD III") (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 293 Fed.Appx. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding (B) holding that smud was entitled to 39796234 in damages (C) holding that a plaintiff is entitled to either statutory treble damages or punitive damages whichever is the greater (D) holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them (E) holding that smud was entitled to mitigation damages for costs incurred from may 15 1997 to december 31 2003

SOLUTION: holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding

PROBLEM: of decision, and this is how the INS has consistently understood these terms.”); Fierro v. Reno, 217 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2000) (“[Sjubject to possible limitation, we think that the requirement of ‘legal custody’ in section 1432 should be taken presumptively to mean legal custody under the law of the state in question.”). Our decision to look to state law is consistent with our practice in other areas of federal law generally, and immigration law specifically. For example, entitlement to federal social security benefits often hinges on marital status as defined by state law. See Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47, 52-53 n. 8, 98 S.Ct. 95, 54 L.Ed.2d 228 (1977); Purganan v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 269, 270-71 (9th Cir.1982); see also Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593, 599 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in the immigration context, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment (B) holding that statute does not provide for the adjudication by the alj of a state law breach of contract action for damages that is independent of the aljs determination of entitlement to benefits under the terms of the applicable agreement (C) holding that determination of whether an official was acting on behalf of the state or the local government is determined by state law (D) holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law (E) holding that applicants for welfare benefits had a property interest or legitimate claim of entitlement and were entitled to due process to protect that interest

SOLUTION: holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment

PROBLEM: proceeding, an appellant must first obtain a COA. Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290, 1294-95 (11th Cir.2006). The court that issues a COA must “indicate which specific issue or issues,” if any, warrant a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Appellate review is then limited to the issues specified in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir.1998). Here, however, the dis trict court failed to specify which issues or issues warranted a COA. Because the court failed to specify the issue or issues for which it granted a COA, we may do one of two things: (1) remand to the district court for enumeration of issues; or (2) retain jurisdiction and rule on those issues raised by the prisoner that we deem worthy of a COA. See Putman v. Head, 268 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Moore v. Campbell, 344 F.3d 1313, 1315 n. 1 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district courts failure to enumerate specific issues for review in a coa does not deprive us of appellate jurisdiction (B) holding the scope of appellate review of denial of a habeas petition limited to the issues on which coa has been granted (C) holding that on appeal from the denial of a  2255 motion appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa (D) holding that appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa (E) holding that appellate review in a habeas ease is limited to the issues specified in the coa

SOLUTION:
holding the scope of appellate review of denial of a habeas petition limited to the issues on which coa has been granted