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. 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.
PROBLEM: I. Jurisdiction The Court of Federal Claims has “jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to ... a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement,” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) (2012). A party is an “interested party” with standing to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) if the party “is an ’ actual or prospective bidder whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract.” Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2013). A bidder has a direct economic interest if it suffered a competitive injury or prejudice. Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In a post-award bid protest, the protestor 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing (B) recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a  1983 claim (C) holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice (D) holding that actual prejudice is not a necessary element of an insurers untimely notice defense (E) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: 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

SOLUTION: (E)

PROBLEM: that he would therefore be entitled to tolling. Second, Waldron-Ramsey argues that even if he had known his state petition was untimely, he believed in 1997 and 1998 that an untimely petition would still be considered “properly filed” under AED-PA and would toll the AEDPA statute of limitations. The Supreme Court foreclosed this interpretation in 2005, holding that an untimely state petition does not toll the AEDPA statute of limitations. See Pace, 544 U.S. at 417, 125 S.Ct. 1807. Waldron-Ramsey points out that we did adopt his reading — that even an untimely state petition can be deemed “properly filed” so as to toll the AEDPA statute of limitations — ■ in 2001, before the issue was finally decided by the Supreme Court in Pace. See Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). However, Dictado was decided years after 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending (B) holding that a district court has the authority to raise the aedpa statute of limitations on its own motion (C) holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional (D) holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations (E) holding that the aedpa statute of limitations was tolled for the entire period during which saffold pursued state habeas relief including the time between filings

SOLUTION:
(D)