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 Q]: whether the Bank was motivated, in whole or in part, by Strate’s association with her disabled newborn child, then summary judgment was improperly granted for the Bank. The evidence establishes that Strate gave birth to her disabled child on April 20, 2001, enrolled the child in the Bank’s group healthcare plan on April 24, 2001, and was notified that her job had been eliminated on July 2, 2001, approximately two months later. It is undisputed that Ziegler knew about the child’s disability when he made the decision to eliminate her job. On rare occasions, a close temporal connection between a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation. See,e.g., Bassett v. City of Minneapolis, 211 F.3d 1097, 1105-06 (8th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>) (citing cases). It follows that close temporal 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection (B) holding that a temporal link between protected activity and an adverse employment action may in some cases be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation (C) holding that temporal proximity between the alleged retaliators knowledge of a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish causal connection or retaliatory motive in some cases (D) holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation (E) holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: positions, the defendants did not, and have not, filed a motion to withdraw the reference. Accordingly, this court finds that any right to a jury trial is waived. Stainer v. Latimer (In re Latimer), 918 F.2d 136 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 863, 112 S.Ct. 186, 116 L.Ed.2d 147 (1991) (court finding a defendant’s request for a jury trial was properly denied where defendants never requested withdrawal of the reference); See In re Chemetco, Inc., 308 B.R. 339 (Bankr.S.D.Ill.2004) (distinguishing Latimer because in Latimer no motion was ever filed, but in Chemetco, the court had discretion on timeliness issue when motion to withdraw reference was filed only seven days after the jury demand); Consolidated Industries Corp. v. Welbilt Holding Co., 254 B.R. 237, 241 (N.D.Ind.2000) (<HOLDING>). 28 U.S.C. § 157 requires that a party file a 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the right to waive a jury trial (B) holding that the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing defendant to withdraw his waiver of jury trial where a lengthy continuance already had been granted (C) holding that a trial courts refusal to withdraw a jury waiver ordinarily does not implicate the federal constitutional right to a jury trial (D) holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver (E) holding with or without a local rule so requiring failure to file motion to withdraw the reference when jury demanded was a waiver of right to jury trial
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: (7th Cir.2002). Counsel first considers whether Romero could argue that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Counsel, though, is unable to articulate any conceivable disagreement with the court’s ruling, and nor are we. A defendant convicted of committing a crime of violence or controlled substance offense qualifies as a career offender if he was at least 18 years old at the time and already had two or more felony convictions for such crimes. Id. § 4Bl.l(a); United States v. Rice, 520 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2008). Romero is 36, and his felony convictions for threatening to murder a magistrate judge and threatening to harm a corrections supervisor are crimes of violence, see United States v. Ladwig, 432 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a) (defining 
 Holding statements: (A) holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person (B) holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate (C) holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence (D) holding that theft from the person of another under wisconsin law is not a crime of violence as a matter of law and can only qualify as such if there are sufficient facts in the indictment to indicate that a serious threat of violence occurred (E) holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence
[EX A]:
(E)