instruction:
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.
question:
the sufficiency of the evidence,” we “must affirm the verdict ‘if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the evidence that the elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the verdict.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Myers, 104 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1218, 117 S.Ct. 1709, 137 L.Ed.2d 834 (1997)). hi. A. The principal issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in admitting the text messages obtained from Govan’s cell phone. First, Govan argues that the district court erred by applying the good-faith exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Govan argues that for the good-faith 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required (B) holding that because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search (C) holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant (D) holding that evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not barred by the exclusionary rule (E) holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid
answer:
(D)


question:
(3) Dr. Hickman’s observation that Seever’s surgeries, residual pain, and physical limitations “have taxed his psychological coping abilities,” ApltApp. at 372. But Dr. Hick man interpreted this information as presenting no more than a slight impairment—meaning that he could still function well—as to understanding, remembering, and carrying out detailed instructions, and he declined to identify any other mental capabilities affected by Seever’s depression. We will not fault the ALJ for failing to interpret Seever’s symptoms and test results differently than Dr. Hickman. See Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1022 (10th Cir.1996) (observing that an ALJ may not substitute his lay opinion for a medical opinion); Hamilton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1500 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Nor are we convinced that the ALJ should have 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that this court may not reweigh evidence (B) recognizing this method (C) recognizing this presumption (D) recognizing this distinction (E) recognizing this rule
answer:
(A)


question:
reasoned explanation for its decision. Complaint at ¶ 14. The Mullinses allege that CSD’s objection had nothing to do with their fitness as adoptive parents. They claim that CSD objected because it erroneously thought that it had to obtain the blessing of Washington authorities before it could send the chil dren to live with the Mullinses in Seattle. See Complaint at ¶ 16. Whatever the reason for the objection, once CSD withheld its consent to the adoption, that was the end of the road for the Mullinses. The juvenile court had no choice but to dismiss their adoption petition for want of jurisdiction. See Oreg.Rev.Stat. § 109.316 (providing that CSD must consent to adoption of children in its custody); see also In re Adoption of Greybull, 29 Or.App. 889, 565 P.2d 773, 774-75 (1977) (<HOLDING>). The juvenile court dutifully dismissed the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that csds consent is jurisdictional fact that must be pleaded in adoption petition (B) holding that a claim of exemption is an affirmative defense which must be specifically pleaded (C) holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional (D) holding that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded (E) holding that the time limit for filing a petition for review of a final order of deportation is jurisdictional
answer:

(A)