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 Q]: in Germantown and Eastern Montgomery County, which the County determined is causing the need to expand the highway system. In Gaithersburg East, the fact that programmed highways are expected to relieve the traffic congestion and there is no need to build unprogrammed highways provides a rational basis to treat the new development in this area differently than the new development in the existing impact districts, where unprogrammed highwa e sub judice is Chapter 808, which gives Montgomery County broad taxing authority, authority that was lacking in those other jurisdictions. See also Home Builders v. Board of Palm Beach County Comm’rs, 446 So.2d 140 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1983), cert. denied, 451 So.2d 848 (Fla.1984), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 976, 105 S.Ct. 376, 83 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984) (<HOLDING>). We likewise hold that the impact tax imposed 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection (B) holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution (C) holding that neither the due process clause nor the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment require the appointment of counsel on a petition for discretionary review to a state supreme court (D) holding that the impact fee there imposed did not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment using the rational basis test we discuss here (E) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection
[EX A]: (D)

[EX Q]: was allegedly violated on each date, despite the fact that the EOP contained several different provisions referring to various types of acts. Be cause the Counts in the Complaint merely alleged that Corder “did intentionally or knowingly violate the [EOP] issued in FC-DA No. 05-1-1551 on August 2, 2006[,]” without designating which conduct and sections within the EOP were violated, “the nature and cause of the accusation [could not] be understood by a person of common understanding from a reading of the Complaint itself.” Israel, 78 Hawai'i at 71, 890 P.2d at 308 (internal quotations marks omitted). The Complaint did reference in its caption (as opposed to in the charges) Police Report No. 07-016631 with respect to Count I, Police Report No. 07-021001 with respect t 1078, 1081 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Complaint was defective. II. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the hrpp does not permit a broad and freeranging discovery in criminal cases (B) holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law (C) holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted (D) recognizing that the facts that a bill of particulars is discretionary with the judge pursuant to hrpp rule 7a and that other discovery rules are limited in scope might prevent a defendant from discovering the states position (E) recognizing the fact that a bill of particulars is discretionary with the judge pursuant to hawaii rules of penal procedure hrpp rule 7a and the fact that other discovery rules given to the defendant are limited might prevent a defendant from discovering the states position
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Smith v. Freland, 954 F.2d 343, 346-47 (6th Cir.1992) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97, 109 S.Ct. 1865). Sgt. Lubelan testified that he saw an officer exposed through the hatch of the LAV before he fired at Rohm, and that he fired at Rohm in order to prevent Rohm from firing at the LAV. Even assuming that Rohm was not aiming his rifle at the LAV when he was shot, we nonetheless conclude that Sgt. Lubelan had probable cause to believe that Rohm posed a serious threat to the officers in the LAV — particularly Sgt. Homrich — due to his proximity to the LAV while armed with a rifle, his prior violent behavior, and his continued refusal to surrender and face arrest. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (<HOLDING>). Because Livermore has not shown that Sgt. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that deadly force is only justified where a suspect poses an immediate threat (B) holding that an officer may use deadly force when a fleeing suspect threatens the officer with a weapon (C) holding that an officer cannot use deadly force unless a suspect poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm (D) holding the use of deadly force is constitutionally permissible only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to the officer or to others (E) holding that it would be clearly unreasonable to deny a police officer the ability to neutralize the threat of physical harm if he has reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous
[EX A]:
(D)