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: 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

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: other non-Virginia cases offer a compelling basis for adopting the per se rule Allied has proposed. In National City Bank v. Fleming, 2 Ohio App.3d 50, 440 N.E.2d 590, 599 (1981), for instance, the court said: It has long been the law of equity that a person who confers a benefit either directly or indirectly upon another in the course of performance of a contract with a third person is not entitled to compensation ... merely because of the failure of performance by the third party. However, where it appears from all the facts that the conferral of such benefit was the product of fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith by the party accepting and retaining such benefit, equity will imply an obligation to make payment therefor. See Costanzo v. Stewart, 9 Ariz.App. 430, 453 P.2d 526 (1969) (<HOLDING>), (emphasis added) (some citations omitted). 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a hospital could not be an erisa beneficiary (B) holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply (C) holding that a duty may be owed to a beneficiary of a consensual relationship akin to that of a thirdparty beneficiary of a contract where the professional has actual knowledge that the services being provided are in part for the benefit of such third persons (D) holding that a contract beneficiary may be liable in restitution where the beneficiary by his conduct induces the conferral of the benefit (E) holding change of beneficiary effective where city employee listed a new beneficiary for his group life insurance policy in an employee personal data form next to the words designated beneficiary even though this did not comply with the policy terms

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: 941, 944 (1937); Meunier v. Bernich, 170 So. 567, 572 (La.Ct.App.1936); Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582, 254 N.W. 910, 911 (1934); Akron Bar Ass’n v. Bojonell, 88 Ohio St.3d 154, 724 N.E.2d 401, 402 (2000); Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Cromwell, 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 695 N.E.2d 243, 244 (1998); Mazzacaro, 351 A.2d at 234; Brown v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 742 S.W.2d 34, 42 (Tex.Ct.App.1987); accord 16 John A. Appleman and Jean Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 8649, at 137 (1981) (“generally the courts have held that if a lay adjuster attempts to handle claims on behalf of plaintiffs, or to effect settlements for them, even though litigation is not required, such amounts to the practice of law”); cf. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Jansen, 816 S.W.2d 813, 814-16 (1991) (<HOLDING>). The reasoning of these courts is helpful in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that public insurance adjusters were not engaged in the practice of law when they merely documented and presented firstparty claims for property damage to insurance compa nies even though they discussed the competing valuations with the inhouse insurance adjuster the court distinguished these activities from the evaluation and presentation of personal injury claims and from the negotiation of settlements (B) holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate (C) holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim (D) holding claims for negligent procurement of insurance accrued on date the insured purchased the insurance policies (E) holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims


Output: (A)