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: completed his nine month term of incarceration and was released from custody on Jply 28, 2017. Any challenge to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of his term' of confinement is thus moot. See United States v. Probber, 170 F.3d 345, 347-49 (2d Cir. 1999) (dismissing as moot an appeal from a judgment revoking supervised release where defendant had already completed his term of confinement). However, because defendant would still be entitled to a reduction of his term of supervised release if the court were to find such a reduction appropriate, we will analyze whether, as defendant claims, the supervised release component of the District Court’s sentence was either procedurally or substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Mazza Alaluf, 621 F.3d 205, 213 (2d Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Defendant contends that the District Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding substantive reasonableness sentencing challenge to be moot when defendant had completed prison sentence but addressing challenge to supervised release conditions (B) holding that where trial court did not inform defendant of supervised release term during plea colloquy but did advise defendant of term in presentence report and at sentencing defendants sentence stands (C) holding that a statute requiring a threeyear term of supervised release did not eviscerate the district courts discretion to adjust the term of supervised release pursuant to  3583e (D) holding that a completed term of confinement did not render a challenge to the reasonableness of a sentence moot where defendant could receive a reduced term of supervised release (E) holding defendant convicted under  841b1a may receive lifetime term of supervised release
Example Output: (D)

Example Input: appeals from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion for reconsideration challenging the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Henderson contends that the district abused its discretion by denying his motion, which we construe as a motion for relief from final judgment based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1171-72 (9th Cir.1989). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Henderson’s motion because his almost two-year delay before filing the motion was not reasonable. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c) (“A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time.... ”); In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an over twoyear delay without any excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law (B) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to find an unexcused twoyear delay unreasonable (C) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (D) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony (E) holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: of his eyes and fired in that direction twice, killing [the victim]. These facts suggest a design to effect the death of [the victim] and therefore do not support a second degree murder instruction.” Taylor v. State, 998 P.2d at 1231. Reviewing the OCCA’s legal conclusions de novo, we concluded that if Mr. Taylor did not aim, but rather the gun was simply flailing around as he testified, such behavior would be imminently dangerous to another person, and it would evince a depraved mind with a disregard of human life, but stands in stark contrast to others in which this court and the OCCA concluded that a lesser-offense instruction was not needed, because in those cases, the evidence did not support the lesser-included offense. See Darks v. Mullin, 327 F.3d 1001, 1010 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Harris v. State, 84 P.3d 731, 750 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction (B) holding that firstdegree sexual abuse is a lesserincluded offense of firstdegree sodomy (C) holding that the defendant was not entitled to a lesserincluded firstdegree manslaughter instruction when his attorney was forced to concede at oral argument that no evidence supported the adequate provocation element (D) holding that firstdegree sexual abuse is a lesserincluded offense of firstdegree rape (E) holding that it was error to direct entry of a conviction for a permissive lesserincluded offense based on the fact that it was supported by the evidence because the greater crime was not charged in a manner that encompassed the intent element of the permissive lesserincluded offense and the jury did not make a finding regarding that intent element
Example Output:
(C)