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:
absence of any effort to serve Bustos with a summons or a complaint, the Receiver cannot claim substantial compliance with Rule 4. The Receiver’s failure even to attempt to comply with Rule 4 is no “minor defect,” United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir.1984), that can be remedied by actual notice. More importantly, the difficulty here runs deeper than mere insufficient service of process. The Receiver never filed a complaint and never named Bustos as a party. In other words, the Receiver never commenced an action against Bustos, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 3; it simply named Bustos in a motion for the disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains earned through the sale of unregistered securities. See In re Alpha Telcom, 2004 WL 3142555, at *1 (<HOLDING>). Prior to Bustos’s intervention in the action, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons (B) holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons (C) holding that a title vii cause of action is limited to those discrimination allegations in the complaint that have been under the scrutiny of a formal eeoc complaint (D) holding that a formal summons and complaint were unnecessary because the motion before the court is not an independent action (E) holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service

Ex Output:
(D)


Ex Input:
the Society over in Russia when the company began to sell its SMIRNOV vodka there. A pending litigation in a foreign country between essentially the same parties, even one that concerned a slightly different topic, has been found to create a objectively reasonably apprehension of suit. See Ethicon, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 369 F.Supp. 934, 936-37 (D.N.J.1973). Therefore, even though it appears as if the defendants have never directly threatened the plaintiffs with legal action in the United States, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have introduced sufficient evidence to support their claim that they reasonably feared a lawsuit if they attempted to enter the U.S. market. Cf. Simmonds Aerocessories, Ltd. v. Elastic Stop Nut Corp. of America, 257 F.2d 485, 490 (3d Cir.1958) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, because the court finds that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the declaratory judgment act is a procedural device (B) recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction (C) holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment (D) holding that letter stating that the defendant was fully prepared to take all necessary legal action in order to protect defendants work was sufficient to show an actual threat of litigation and created a case or controversy for the purposes of the declaratory judgment act (E) recognizing that it is not essential for there to be a direct threat of litigation in order to invoke the declaratory judgment act

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
our precedents still foreclose a defendant from successfully excluding “evidence that has been ‘come at by exploitation’ of a violation of somebody else’s rights.” Jarvi 537 F.3d at 1259. Defendant concedes on appeal that he lacks “standing” to challenge the officer’s initial entry, which means that he had no expectation of privacy in Gonzalez’s residence. Defendant’s brief demonstrates he understands the equivalence of these two concepts. Even if Defendant had not made this concession, we would affirm the district court’s conclusion that Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in Gonzalez’s residence. The district court’s conclusion falls squarely within a host of controlling authority. See, e.g., Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 90, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Thomas, 372 F.3d 1173, 1176 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a person at anothers residence solely for the purpose of engaging in drug related activity has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence (B) holding that residence in the cnmi before 2009 was not residence in the united states for naturalization purposes (C) holding residence means legal residence for will probate (D) holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found (E) holding a person who is present at anothers home with permission simply for the purpose of consummating a business transaction does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there

Ex Output:

(A)