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.

[EX Q]: interest of safety and security at the institution. Accordingly, the order of the district court denying Hyde’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Chief Judge LANSING and Judge PERRY concur. 1 . Roles was addressed in the context of FERPA. However, as we discuss below, there is no distinction between FERPA’s compelling govern mental interest standard and that embodied in RLUIPA. 2 .Some states along with the Federal Bureau of Prisons allow sweat lodges and other Native American religious practices at maximum security prisons. See Pounders v. Kempker, 79 Fed. Appx. 941, 943 n. 2 (8th Cir.2003) (noting that Missouri eventually built a sweat lodge at its maximum security Potosi Correctional Center); Allen v. Toombs, 827 F.2d 563 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Morrison v. Cook, 1999 WL 717218, *4 (D.Or. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that removal from house arrest and return to general prison population was a matter of inmate classification (B) holding that africanamerican plaintiffs claims that defendants should have known that placing him in a jail with a large population of white inmates put him at risk of being attacked were without merit because the plaintiff had not alleged any specific facts which would show that he was in danger of being assaulted by the other inmates (C) holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population (D) recognizing general rule (E) recognizing that general population inmates at oregon maximum security prison were allowed to participate in weekly sweat lodge ceremonies
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: would be dangerous, futile, or allow the destruction of evidence. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 1421, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). In this case, the trial court granted Broussard's motion in limine prohibiting any mention of what Officer Kwiatkowski learned to support the search warrant. Given this limited record, we cannot know whether one of the exceptions applies. Further, even if there was a violation of the knock-and-announce rule, the United States Supreme Court has not yet decided whether or to what extent the exclusionary rule should be used as a remedy. See Wilson, 514 U.S. at 937 n. 4, 115 S.Ct. at 1919 n. 4; United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 72 n. 3, 118 S.Ct. 992, 997 n. 3, 140 L.Ed.2d 191 (1998). 3 . See, e.g., Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 814-15 (<HOLDING>). 4 . In 1991, Broussard pleaded guilty to a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant waived ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsels failure to emphasize certain evidence where amended motion for new trial did not assert claim of ineffectiveness on that ground and no argument related to the asserted ground was made at the motion for new trial hearing (B) holding that the combined effect of trial counsels errors should be considered (C) holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court (D) holding ineffectiveness should be considered at hearing dedicated to considering all facts circumstances and rationale behind counsels actions including opportunity to explain why no objection was made in trial court (E) holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully
[EX A]: (D)

[EX Q]: into these facts at all. Neither could defense counsel have relied on the fact that Dr. Emery did not find a need for neurological examinations because, as discussed above, they failed to give him the information necessary to form an opinion in this regard. In sum, defense counsel’s failure to insist on neuropsychological testing did not stem from an informed decision made after reasonable investigation, as required by the Constitution, but was the product of neglect. See Seidel v. Merkle, 146 F.3d 750, 756 (9th Cir.1998) (finding ineffective assistance where defense counsel “failed to conduct even the minimal investigation that would have enabled him to come to an informed decision” regarding his client’s mental health defenses); cf. Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Pizzuto not only has shown that his counsel’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defense counsel opened the door to the states rebuttal remarks when defense counsel raised the issue in his closing argument (B) holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity (C) holding that the decision whether to seek a mistrial is a tactical decision entrusted to defense counsel binding the defendant even when the defendant expressed a contrary wish to his lawyer (D) holding that defense counsel gathered sufficient evidence to make a reasonable tactical decision not to conduct further investigations into his clients mental health when psychiatric experts interviewed the defendant for more than twenty hours and informed defense counsel that they could not find any basis for a mental defense (E) holding that defense counsels decision not to call defendant to the stand despite defendants repeatedly expressed desire to testify on his own behalf was not ineffective assistance of counsel but was a reasonable tactical decision by counsel not to subject defendant to all of the risk attendant on crossexamination
[EX A]:
(D)