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.

Example Input: The appellant’s first point relied on is also deficient in that it does not comply with Rule 84.04(d)(5) inasmuch as the authority cited by the appellant in support of the claim raised relates only to our standard of review and the manner in which we are to interpret a statute. Rule 84.04(d)(5) provides: In support of each “Point Relied On,” and immediately following the statement of the Point, the appellant or relator shall cite all authorities upon which the argument rests. If more than three authorities are cited, the three authorities on which the appellant, relator, or petitioner principally relies shall be cited first. The appellant does not, as required by the rule, provide any authority for his claimed interpretation of the implicated statutes. See Coleman, 969 S.W.2d at 274 (<HOLDING>). If no such citations exist because this is a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review (B) holding the trial court was without authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the amount of the judgment required the appellant to file an application for discretionary review (C) holding that an appellate court may not review errors that have not been assigned by a party or a point of error (D) holding that a claim is waived on appeal when not supported by citation to relevant authority (E) holding that an appellate court is not required to review an appellants point relied on which appears without citation of applicable or relevant authority
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: of death which does not meet these requirements is voidable by the donor (if he recovers) or his personal representative. Hulley v. Chedic, 22 Nev. 127,146, 36 P. 783 (1894). In other words, a gift in contemplation of death'is presumptively voidable by the personal representative of the deceased, and the presumption may be rebutted by the donee with clear and convincing evidence of the six elements listed above. Although Goldsworthy and Hulley are the only Nevada cases ever to have examined the gift causa mortis doctrine, and they have never been overruled, at least one Nevada case has suggested (in a different context) that the burden of proof may not be on the donee. North Arlington Medical Building, Inc. v. Sanchez Construction Company, 86 Nev. 515, 521, 471 P.2d 240, 244 (Nev.1970) (<HOLDING>). North Arlington is not really on point, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable (B) holding that inter vivos gift to minor is presumptively effective under nrs 167040 (C) holding that the purpose of nrs 1760551 is to ensure that all time served is credited towards a defendants ultimate sentence (D) holding that belowguidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable (E) holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: and pensions, 45 U.S.C. 288(L); Veterans benefits, 45 U.S.C. 352(E); Special pensions paid to winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor, 38 U.S.C. 3101; and Federal homestead lands on debts contracted before issuance of the patent, 43 U.S.C. 175. S.Rep. No. 95-989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 75, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5861; H.Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong.2d Sess. 360 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6316. The court in Goff then examined two lower court decisions which had considered the legislative history and had reached “diametrically opposite interpretations of the scope of this provision [§ 522(b)(2)(A) ] relative to ERISA-qualified pension plans.” Goff, 706 F.2d at 583. Those cases were Samore v. Graham (In re Graham), 24 B.R. 305 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa 1982) (<HOLDING>) and Barr v. Hinshaw (In re Hinshaw), 23 B.R. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs did not fall within the zone of interests protected by the tcpa because they attempted to use the statute in a way not intended or contemplated by congress and because their damages are not of the vexatious and intrusive nuisance nature sought to be redressed by congress in enacting the tcpa (B) holding that it is not within the judicial province to give the words used by congress a narrower meaning than they were manifestly intended to bear in order that crimes may be punished which are not described in language that brings them within the constitutional power of that body (C) holding that erisaqualified pension plans were not intended by congress to be within the statutory exemption (D) holding that the pension plans anticutback language offered more protection than the acts (E) holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3
Example Output:
(C)