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: added). Plaintiffs point out, correctly, that beneficial use is an evolving and dynamic requirement of federal and state law. See Joslin v. Marin Mun. Water Dist., 67 Cal.2d 132, 140, 60 Cal.Rptr. 377, 429 P.2d 889 (1967) (While “what is a reasonable use of water depends on the circumstances of each case, such an inquiry cannot be resolved in vacuo isolated from statewide considerations of transcendent importance.”). Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 requires that all water provided pursuant to the Act be put to “beneficial use,” as defined by state law. 43 U.S.C. §§ 372, 383; California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645, 665-67, 98 S.Ct. 2985, 57 L.Ed.2d 1018 (1978); see also City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency, 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1242, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 294, 5 P.3d 853 (2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially (B) holding that mandamus was appropriate to require the director to deliver the full decreed water rights of a water right holder (C) holding that the montana constitution protects water rights against unreasonable state action  (D) holding substantial completion had occurred because water district took possession of all the lines filled them with water and began using them to serve the customers of the water district (E) recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: is “doubtful that the judicial interpretation of advisory Sentencing Guidelines promulgated by an independent commission implicates either of the twin concerns that motivate the rule of lenity.,” United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 719 (11th Cir. 2010) (William Pryor, J., concurring). And in any event, the text of the guideline is clear—“ ‘prior sentence’ means a sentence imposed prior to sentencing on the instant Qffense,” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. 1. ' Burke’s alternative'ground for appeal— that the district court erred in calculating his sentence because his 1999 Florida conviction for armed robbery is not a “crime of violence” as that term is used in section 2K2.1(4)(A) of the Guidelines—is foreclosed by binding precedent. United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 938 (11th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>); Lockley, 632 F.3d at 1246 (holding that a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that armed robbery suspect was entitled to bail hearing even though armed robbery was considered capital offense under mississippi law because maximum sentence was life imprisonment (B) holding that a conviction for florida armed robbery is a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act (C) holding that the illinois crime of failure to report for imprisonment is not a violent felony for purposes of the armed career criminal act (D) holding that violence is synonymous with force in affirming armed robbery conviction (E) holding that attempted burglary under florida law qualified as a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act 18 usc  924e2biihereinafter acca because it involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: over the area in common with a co-occupant who later objects to the use of evidence so obtained.” Id. at 1518. The Court, however, also held that, as between a wife’s consent to a search of the family residence and her husband’s refusal to consent, "a physically present co-occupant’s stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him.” Id. at 1519. Comments, Model Civ. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 9.13 (2007). 13 . See also Cal. Penal Code § 3067(d) (in the context of parole searches, noting "[i]t is not the intent of the Legislature to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct searches for the sole purpose of harassment.”). 14 . But see Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 650-52, 657, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Gibson v. Cty. of Washoe, Nev., 290 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity (B) holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional (C) recognizing a claim for civil liability against municipalities  under  1983 (D) holding individual officers entitlement to qualified immunity does not immunize municipalities from monell liability (E) holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit
Example Output:
(D)