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.

Ex Input:
pre-trial release on April 12, 1985. Although this appeal has received expedited review, a decision has not yet been rendered by the Second Circuit. Thus a total of only fifty-six (56) non-excludable days have elapsed since Leon was arrested and detained (assuming that the filing of Elba Rodriguez’s omnibus motion stopped the clock as to all the co-defendants). DISCUSSION Leon’s first argument is based upon the interpretation of Section 3164(b) itself, which provides that, “[t]he periods of delay enumerated in Section 3161(h) are excluded in computing the time limitations specified in this section.” Leon argues that this sent C.Cir.1976) and United States v. Mejias, 417 F.Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd. on other grounds, sub nom., United States v. Martinez, 538 F.2d 921 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). According to the House Report accompanying 
 Holding statements: (A) holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases (B) holding that a court examining if a law should be applied retroactively should consider whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment (C) holding that the first amendment definition should be applied by analogy in the franks setting (D) holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk (E) holding that the exclusions should be applied

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
a habeas petition, and since his administrative remedies are now exhausted, this claim can proceed. B. Fox’s Notification Challenge is Properly Before The Court The second half of Fox’s claim relating to the notification requirement of the statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 4042(c)(2), is properly brought by him as a petition for a declaratory judgment. Notification claims do not relate to the fact or duration of confinement, therefore challenge to a notification requirement is not properly brought as a habeas petition. See Bunn v. Conley, 309 F.3d 1002, 1008-09 (7th Cir. 2002) (“The notification scheme [under 18 U.S.C § 4042(b) governing violent offender notification] in no way affects the duration, much less the fact, of confinement.”); Henrikson v. Guzik, 249 F.3d 395, 397 n. 4 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction (B) holding that because henrikson is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement subject matter jurisdiction is not present under 28 us  2241 (C) holding that subject matter jurisdiction under  2241 is present in the custodial court when the petition challenges the manner location or condition of a sentences execution (D) holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction   depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc  1330a and proper service under 28 usc  1608 (E) holding that district courts have jurisdiction under 28 usc  2241 to review cat claims for errors of law including the erroneous application or interpretation of statutes

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
money on him. He then equipped the confidential informant with an audio recording device to record the conversation. Sergeant Brawner and the confidential informant planned a signal for the confidential informant to give if he saw the money. The confidential informant drove to the meeting location. On his way there, the informant talked to Renteria on his cell phone. Renteria told the informant that a police patrol car was in the parking lot. They agreed to meet at a nearby Burger King. The informant notified Sergeant Brawner of the change in location. At the Burger King, the confidential informant went inside with Renteria, Appellan weigh the significance that the meeting place changed, due to a police patrol car being at the original planned location. See Matthews, 431 S.W.3d at 603 (<HOLDING>). Appellant’s other ground for suppressing the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a trial courts bestinterest determination is a subjective assessment based on the totality of circumstances (B) holding foreseeability is based on the totality of the circumstances not on a mechanical prior similar incidents rule (C) holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances (D) recognizing that district courts finding of reasonable suspicion or probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances is ordinarily accorded deference (E) holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable

Ex Output:

(C)