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:
199 F.3d at 248 n. 6. Moreover, when the plaintiff declares the sufficiency of his pleadings and makes no attempt to amend his complaint in response to the defendant’s challenge pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is proper when the plaintiffs allegations fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See Spiller v. City of Texas City, 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir.1997). In addition, a plaintiff should not be granted leave to amend after being afforded repeated opportunities to do so. See Wilkins, 173 F.Supp.2d at 614; accord United States ex rel. Adrian v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 363 F.3d 398, 404 (5th Cir.2004) (noting that “pleading review is not a game where the plaintiff is permitted to file serial amendments until he finally gets it right”); Willard, 336 F.3d at 387 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, “where a proposed amendment 
 Holding statements: (A) holding leave to amend was properly denied where the relator had previously filed two amended complaints (B) holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made (C) holding district court properly denied leave to amend where application was four months late and appeared to be futile (D) holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court (E) holding that the trial court properly refused to consider allegations in the disallowed amended complaints
answer:
(A)


question:
those same arguments. Like the majority of the appellate panel that first reviewed this appeal, we are not persuaded to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court on this evidential ruling. It was for the trial court to assess defendant’s prior conviction’s probative value in light of its remoteness, and we cannot say that the trial court erred in that judgment. The question is not whether we would have made a different determination in the first instance. Rather, we apply the normal, deferential standard and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted the use of the prior conviction for impeachment purposes. The conviction was not stale by the standard in use for assessing remoteness. See Harris, supra, 209 N.J. at 436, 444-45, 38 A.3d 559 (<HOLDING>). And, we cannot say that the trial court’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible (B) holding two prior convictions more than ten years old admissible where disorderlypersons offenses bridged the gap (C) holding that state may charge separately for the same offense but the convictions for more than one of the offenses cannot stand (D) holding that evidence of two intervening felony convictions removed taint of remoteness from convictions more than 10 years prior permitting analysis under rule 609a (E) holding that prior distribution and possession convictions that were eight and ten years before the charged conduct occurred were not too remote
answer:
(B)


question:
claim did not accrue until the moment of execution. McNair deemed such a time-of-harm accrual principle to have no application “where the ultimate injury is reasonably likely and wholly foreseeable.” 515 F.3d at 1174. The court went on to explain, “It is clear a capital litigant may file suit and obtain injunctive relief long before he is executed.” Id. After detailed analysis of various alternative dates, the McNair panel concluded that the appropriate accrual date for a method-of-execution challenge was the date that Alabama’s execution protocol became applicable to the plaintiff because by that time “the facts which would support a cause of action should have been apparent to any person with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights.” Id. at 1177; see also Crowe, 528 F.3d at 1293 (<HOLDING>). A similar conclusion was reached in Lovett v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that methodofexecution challenge accrued for limitations period when after direct review of his convictions had been completed crowe became subject to the method of lethal injection that he chal lenges (B) holding that the plaintiff was required to arbitrate his claim which accrued before he became bound by the arbitration rules of the new york stock exchange because he was fully aware of the existing claim at the time he became a member of the exchange and became bound by its arbitration rules (C) holding that the statute of limitations accrued when the minors father was appointed his guardian and not when the minor became comatose (D) holding that a conviction became final when the ninetyday period to seek direct review from the  supreme court by way of certiorari expired (E) holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed
answer:

(A)