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.

Input: Consider Input: that Turner exhibited symptoms of ADHD prior to the age of seven, a requirement for diagnosis of this condition, and none of the data reviewed by Dr. Danziger suggested an onset prior to age seven either. Had trial counsel presented Dr. Eisenstein as an expert during the penalty phase, the State would have undermined his opinions in the same manner as occurred during the evidentiary he ) (rejecting Caldwell challenge to the standard jury instructions on the mer jecting challenge to constitutionality of execution methods as meritless); Darling v. State, 45 So.3d 444, 447-48 (Fla.2010) (rejecting challenge to constitutionality of section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2007), which exempts from public records the identity of an executioner); Israel v. State, 985 So.2d 510, 521 (Fla.2008) (<HOLDING>). Cumulative Error Finally, where the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings is not absolute where the defendant has been convicted of or has admitted to committing a crime (B) holding if there has been no termination of employment there has been no layoff or reduction in force (C) holding that a claim that the defendant may be insane at the time of execution is premature where no death warrant has been signed and the defendant has not been found to be incompetent (D) recognizing that it has long been the rule that a mechanics lien claim may be waived (E) holding the same where the term conviction refers to a defendant who has been found guilty of a listed offense but has not yet been sentenced

Output: (C)


Input: Consider Input: that the State of Colorado is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and that the District Court properly dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim against Colorado for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We next turn to the court’s decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim against the University of Colorado Board of Regents for lack of standing. We need not address this issue, however, because the Colorado Board of Regents is, like the state itself, entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Buchwald v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Med., 159 F.3d 487, 494 n. 3 (10th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e have no doubt that UNMSM, its Regents, and the Committee on Admissions are ‘arms of the state,’ entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Lujan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 69 F.3d 1511, 1522 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Hensel v. Office of Chief Admin. Hearing 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the eleventh amendment protects a state from suit by its own citizens (B) holding that the university of californias board of regents is shielded from suit under the eleventh amendment (C) holding that a debtors adversary proceeding against the university of virginia to determine the dischargeability of a debt is a suit for eleventh amendment purposes (D) holding that governors duty to nominate and appoint members of the board of regents of the university of hawaii is subject to a reasonable time standard judged by the totality of the circumstances (E) holding that the department of corrections was entitled to eleventh amendment immunity from suit under section 1981

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: application of our law. The analogy of D.C.Code offenses to federal offenses is also used to justify the continued trial of D.C.Code offenders in the federal courts in the District, notwithstanding the conferral of all local criminal jurisdiction on the Superior Court. Under D.C.Code § 11-502(3) (1982), a D.C.Code violator also charged with a federal offense may be tried in a joint indictment in federal court. Even if the federal charge is ultimately dismissed, the federal court tries these offenders using federal standards. See United States v. Brown, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 311, 314-15, 483 F.2d 1314, 1317-18 (1973) (applying federal bail rules to defendant charged with D.C.Code offenses tried in federal court); United States v. Belt, 169 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 8, 14, 514 F.2d 837, 844, 850 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The result may be a difference in outcome in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal evidentiary standard for impeachment by prior conviction should apply to dccode offenders tried in federal court (B) holding that a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit (C) holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes (D) holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law (E) holding that plaintiffs noncompliance with dccode  12309 cannot bar federal claims


Output: (A)