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.

did not expressly note the officers’ purpose in knocking on the defendant’s door, but it is fairly clear from our description of the facts that they intended to arrest him. Although the defendant was standing inside the doorway of his room, we held that the officers lawfully arrested him because he “ ‘voluntarily exposed himself to warrantless arrest’ by freely opening the door of his motel room to the police.” Id. at 1426 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 626 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir.1980)). Unlike the officers in Jardines and in this case, the officers in Vaneaton were standing in the common space of a motel when they knocked, rather than in the curtilage of a home. We therefore have no need to overrule Vaneaton. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Whether Vaneaton remains good law after 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a three judge panel is free to reexamine the holding of a prior panel when the supreme court has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable (B) holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable (C) holding that where the relevant court of last resort has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable then a threejudge panel of this court and district courts should consider themselves bound by the intervening higher authority and reject the prior opinion of this court as having been effectively overruled (D) holding that a three judge panel is not bound by prior circuit precedent if an intervening decision of a higher authority undercuts the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable (E) holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority
(A)

residence. Upon arrival, the police recovered shell casings from a .40 caliber weapon. Robles told the police that he was not home when the shots were fired, and he denied-owning a .40 caliber weapon. Despite Robles’ denials, Detective Cabrera recovered a .40 caliber pistol that was registered to Robles. The police did not follow up with Robles or the witnesses. Once again, Robles was not charged. In August 2010, Johnson amended his pending PCRA petition to allege that the Commonwealth violated Brady by withholding the above-described police reports. The PCRA court dismissed Johnson’s amended petition as untimely. On appeal, however, this Court reversed and remanded for a merits review of Johnson’s Brady claim. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 619 Pa. 386, 64 A.3d 621 (2013) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). After remand, the PCRA court granted 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar (B) holding that coleman could use certain information to bring a new and separate suit even though that information was discovered subsequent to a violation of the courts protective order (C) holding that attorney abandonment constitutes an extraordinarycircumstance that allows a federal court to disregard the state procedural bar to hearing a habeas petition (D) holding that infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief (E) holding that the information discovered during the federal habeas proceedings constitutes newly discovered facts for pur poses of the b1ii exception to the pcras jurisdictional time bar
(E)

court. ORDER AND NOW, this 5th day of November, 2010, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, dated December 31, 2009, in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED. 1 . A Quality Assurance Officer takes vehicles to inspection centers and observes whether emission inspection regulations are followed. Reproduced Record at 40a (R.R_). 2 . Section 177.602(a) establishes a schedule of penalties that can be imposed upon inspection stations. The penalty established for the first violation of "Fraudulent recordkeeping” is "1 year [suspension] and [a] $2,500 fine.” 67 Pa.Code § 177.602(a)(iii). 3 .Generally, participation in a de novo hearing cures any procedural defects regarding notice. See Department of Transportation v. Sutton, 541 Pa. 35, 40, 660 A.2d 46, 48 (1995) (<HOLDING>). However, at the trial court, McCarthy argued 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo (B) holding we review claim construction de novo on appeal (C) holding a de novo statutory appeal hearing in the court of common pleas cures any defects in the departments notice of suspension (D) holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review (E) recognizing de novo standard of review

(C)