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.

a sergeant entered the house with her. 2 . Harris testified that he opened the door for the police: "I saw them coming, so I just opened the door.” However, Officer Shepard testified that she knocked on the door and that after no one answered she entered the house through the door, which was unlocked. 3 . We decline to reach the question whether the warrantless entry and the search by the police officers were justified by exigent circumstances. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)(rejecting a "murder scene exception” created by the Supreme Court of Arizona to the requirement of obtaining a warrant). See also Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17, 22, 105 S.Ct. 409, 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984)(applying Mincey); Ex parte Usrey, 527 So.2d 732 (Ala.1987) (<HOLDING>); A.A.G. v. State, 668 So.2d 122, 128 
 Holding statements: (A) holding no liability existed under the circumstances (B) holding that once the scene was secure exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant (C) holding that exigent circumstances were created by dissipation of bloodalcohol content in time needed to obtain a warrant (D) holding that exigent circumstances were present because evidence of bloodalcohol content could disappear during the time necessary to obtain a warrant (E) recognizing that  exigent circumstances do not excuse the failure to secure a warrant when those circumstances are created by government officials who unreasonably and deliberately delay or avoid obtaining the warrant
(B)

omitted). Even if we were to do so, it would not change the outcome, since we see no error in the district court’s ruling regardless of whether the robbery and drug conspiracy were related. 3 . This course of action is permissible, though "we have repeatedly mentioned 'our strong preference for James proceedings.' ” United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267, 1273 (10th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Owens, 70 F.3d 1118, 1123 (10th Cir.1995)). 4 . The conspiracy supporting the introduction of the out-of-court statement need not be the same as the conspiracy charged in the indictment, so long as the statement was in furtherance of the uncharged conspiracy. United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 82 (2d. Cir.1999); see also United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 675 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). 5 .Burnett testified at one point that he had 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a failure to instruct the jury on additional uncharged conspiracies is not reversible error so long as the jury is instructed that the government has the burden to prove the charged conspiracy (B) holding that although it is proper to instruct the jury that it may consider whether the factual predicates necessary to establish the prima facie case have been shown it is error to instruct the jury on the mcdonnell douglas burden shifting scheme (C) holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error (D) holding failure to instruct jury on requirement of corroboration of informants testimony is error (E) holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial
(A)

alleges that she, Rutledge, and Knapp generally performed similar jobs, and that the fact that her supervisors provided various explanations to her of why she could not be promoted demonstrates that those explanations are pretext. See EEOC v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 243 F.3d 846, 852-53 (4th Cir.2001) (“Indeed, the fact that Sears has offered different justifications at different times for its failure to hire Santana is, in and of itself, probative of pretext.”). Neither of these allegations creates a genuine issue of material fact concerning pretext. It is undisputed that Rutledge and Knapp had different job titles than Baldwin, and Baldwin offers no evidence other than her unsupported allegation to permit a conclusion that their duties were nonetheless similar. See Evans, 80 F.3d at 960 (<HOLDING>). Absent proof that their duties were the same, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that temporal proximity is insufficient in and of itself to establish that the employers nondiscriminatory reason for discharging an employee was in fact pretextual (B) holding that a plaintiffemployees unsubstantiated allegations and bald assertions are insufficient to rebut the employers nondiscriminatory justification for an employment decision (C) recognizing that even a personal grudge can constitute a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision (D) holding that unsubstantiated assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence (E) recognizing that an employers decision to eliminate a position is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating a position or employee

(B)