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.

Example Input: IV, V, VI and XIV. See Answee, Docket # 8, Exh. A, pp. 13-14. In order to allow the state courts the opportunity to act on or correct the violations alleged, the Applicant must do more than just invoke the magic words “fair trial,” or “due process,” or make only cursory citation to the appropriate constitutional amendments. He must provide legal theory explaining how the admission of the statements or testimony violated these particular federal constitutional rights. See, e.g., Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7-8, 103 S.Ct. 276, 74 L.Ed.2d 3 (1982) (claim on direct appeal that jury instruction was reversible error did not fairly present due process challenge to instruction for habeas exhaustion purposes); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276-77, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) (<HOLDING>); see, also, Thomas v. Gibson, 218 F.3d 1213, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in preaedpa case habeas applicant failed to fairly present federal claim to state court where despite presenting all necessary facts applicant failed to assert specific argument that he later tried to raise in federal court (B) holding that where defendant failed to raise defense of plaintiffs fraud in federal court defendant is barred from raising that issue in state court (C) holding that habeas petitioner scheduled to be executed in the state of virginia for capital murder could not raise claim of violation of his rights under the vienna convention on federal habeas review where he failed to preserve the claim by raising it in state court proceedings vienna convention does not trump subsequent federal statute requiring habeas petitioners who claim to be held in violation of treaties of the united states to develop factual bases for their claims in state court as a precondition of federal habeas review (D) holding applicants general state court claim was insufficient to exhaust his later more specific federal habeas claim (E) holding that a federal court may deny an unexhausted habeas petition on the merits when it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not raise even a colorable federal claim
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: no indication that Mexican law should govern the claims at issue. Thus, under Texas’s most significant relationship test, American law is likely to govern the merits issues, and this factor weighs against dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. 4. Application of Foreign Law Although American law is likely to govern the merits, it appears that Mexican law will be relevant to collateral issues such as the nature of the property that is the subject of the contract. An American forum would nevertheless be capable of handling the difficulties posed by Mexican fideicomiso law should the court need to do so. Indeed, American forums have competently adjudicated matters involving Mexican fideicomiso property interests on other occasions. See Gale v. Camrite, 559 F.3d 359 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810 (9th Cir.1995) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where there was a breach of contract accompanied by aggravating factors that it was proper to treble the breach of contract damages (B) holding that a seller did not breach its contract by averring that there would be no tax liability incurred by the sale of a baja california sur condominium owned pursuant to fideicomiso law (C) holding that breach occurred when seller told buyer that seller would do no more to rectify alleged warranty violation (D) holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action (E) holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: 53 S.W.3d 368, 52 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ) (recognizing that “[t]he measure of damages to [personal] property that is totally destroyed [by another’s negligence] is its reasonable market value when destroyed”); Shaw Tank Cleaning Co. v. Tex. Pipeline Co., 442 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tex.Civ.App.-AmariIlo 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (upholding replacement damages awarded by jury for destruction of crude oil storage tank by fire negligently caused by defendant). When the damaged property “has neither a market value nor a real value, but it is shown what it would cost to replace or reproduce the article, then such cost is the measure of recovery.” Int'l-Great N. R.R. Co., 46 S.W.2d at 670; Pringle v. Nowlin, 629 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). It is the plaintiffs burden to show which 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because plaintiffs speech occurred in the reception area of the judge executives office it was only the nature of that limited area and not the general public nature of fiscal court budding within which the office was located that was determinative of the forum (B) holding that claimant was entitled to workers compensation because he was injured in a parking lot which was leased by his employer (C) holding plaintiff entitled to replace ment value of gold leaf professional sign located in the window of his leased law office when defendants intentionally destroyed it (D) holding that a plaintiff who did not replace a destroyed tractortrailer due to lack of funds and failure to find a suitable replacement could recover for loss of use of the vehicle limited to a reasonable time (E) holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire
Example Output:
(C)