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.

as an exhibit, he was able to make his argument that the victim was vindictive towards defendant. Accordingly, even if the trial court erred in this respect, we are not persuaded that it is more probable than not that any such error was outcome determinative. (MCOA Op. at 5.) Petitioner contends that, by barring the introduction of the actual letters sent by Gordon and barring cross-examination that quoted those letters, the trial court prevented him from effectively cross-examining Gordon about her bias and motive for giving false evidence against him. I disagree. Unlike in Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, the trial court did not “prohibit! ] all inquiry” into Gordon’s possible bias and motivation to lie. Id. (emphasis in original); see also Vasquez, 496 F.3d at 571 (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Petitioner’s representations, he 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing this distinction (B) recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel (C) recognizing distinction between barring all inquiry into a witness bias and barring a particular form of crossexamination (D) recognizing distinction between two types of waiver (E) recognizing distinction between smith and mcdonnell
(C)

campus is a limited public forum. Def. Br. 12. The Court agrees with the defendants’ assessment. The Court begins by recognizing that “the campus of a public university, at least for its students, possesses many of the characteristics of a public forum.” Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 267 n. 5, 102 S.Ct. 269, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981). Accordingly, the Second Circuit has noted, “[s]ome portions of a public college’s campus may be a public forum.” Davis v. Stratton, 360 FedAppx. 182, 184 (2d Cir.2010). Significant to the analysis, however, is that these areas may constitute a designated public forum only to the extent they are “intentionally openfed]” to First Amendment activities. Make the Road by Walking, Inc. v. Turner, 378 F.3d 133, 143 (2d Cir.2004); see also Ochshom, 645 F.3d at 540 (<HOLDING>); Hotel Emps., 311 F.3d at 545 (noting that a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a high school is not a public forum thus precluding free airing of religious views (B) holding that a public high school newspaper was a limited public forum not a traditional or designated public forum because there was no evidence that the school permitted indiscriminate use by the general public quoting hazelwood sch dist v kuhlmeier 484 us 260 267 108 sct 562 98 led2d 592 1988 (C) holding that a public school did not create a public forum by allowing commercial advertising on a baseball field fence (D) recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public (E) recognizing that government is not required to retain open nature of designated public forum
(B)

be filed within three years of the time the petitioner’s direct appeal is ruled upon. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2015). Here, Lyles’s direct appeal of this conviction was affirmed by this Court on May 19, 2009. See Lyles v. State, 12 So.3d 552, 555 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2009). He filed his PCR motion in February 2013, over three years later. Thus, his PCR motion is time-barred. ¶ 12. Certain statutory exceptions could waive the procedural bar, such as an intervening Mississippi Supreme Court decision like Gowdy, if it applied. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)(a)(i). However, Gowdy does not apply, because, as the State points out, it cannot be applied retroactively to cases that were final before April 7, 2011, the date Gowdy’s mandate was issued. See Carr, 178 So.3d at 321 (¶ 6) (<HOLDING>). This Court affirmed Lyles’s conviction on May 
 Holding statements: (A) holding miranda decision does not apply retroactively (B) holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely (C) holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively (D) holding gowdy does not apply retroactively to habitualoffender convictions that were final when gowdy was issued (E) holding that  523a13 does not apply retroactively

(D)