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.

detention of the van, its driver, and its passenger exceeded the valid reason for the initial stop and violated the Fourth Amendment. The subsequent search of the vehicle was an unconstitutional search, and the drugs and drug paraphernaha discovered were fruit of the poisonous tree. The trial court’s denial of appellants’ motions to suppress should have been granted. In light of this holding, we need not address the third point, that omissions of facts in Ramsey’s affidavit for search warrant undermined the drug dog’s reliability and amounted to a Franks violation; or the fourth point, that the search warrant was objectively unreasonable and that there was no basis for a nighttime search. Reversed and remanded. Hart, Robbins, and Neal, JJ. te, 84 Md. App. 243, 578 A.2d 816 (1990) (<HOLDING>). In this case, after Ramsey determined that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that coming from the wrong neighborhood does not give rise to reasonable suspicion (B) holding innocent facts when considered together can give rise to reasonable suspicion (C) holding that the fact that defendant granted consent to police to search some items and then refused to give consent to additional searches cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion (D) holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics (E) holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion
(D)

I. Jurisdiction The Court of Federal Claims has “jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to ... a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement,” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) (2012). A party is an “interested party” with standing to bring suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) if the party “is an ’ actual or prospective bidder whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract.” Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2013). A bidder has a direct economic interest if it suffered a competitive injury or prejudice. Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In a post-award bid protest, the protestor 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing (B) recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a  1983 claim (C) holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice (D) holding that actual prejudice is not a necessary element of an insurers untimely notice defense (E) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim
(A)

Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1033-34 (8th Cir.2005). Smith’s Blakely challenge falls within the scope of his appeal waiver. Relying on Blakely, Smith argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it included drug quantities not admitted by him or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in setting his sentence. Smith argues that his base offense level should have been 32 based on the admitted drug quantities rather than 34 based on additional drug quantities as found by the district court. This Blakely challenge is quintessential^ a constitutional challenge to the Guidelines and is expressly precluded by Smith’s agreement not to appeal the constitutionality or legality of the Guidelines. See United States v. Young, 413 F.3d 727, 730, 2005 WL 1558486 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Nor does Smith’s appeal fall within the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendants failure to object to the denial of his right peremptorily to challenge alternates constitutes a waiver of any right to appeal the issue (B) holding that a blakely challenge fell within the defendants waiver of his right to appeal the constitutionality or legality of the guidelines (C) holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence (D) holding that a municipal court had no constitutional or statutory authority to rule on the legality and constitutionality of a tax imposed on attorneys practicing within the city limits (E) holding that waiver of right to appeal sentence unless its was an upward departure barred appeal of sentence within guidelines range

(B)