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]: be ascertained from the creating instrument, the permissible uses of an easement acquired by prescription are necessarily defined by the use of the servient land during the prescriptive period.”). In French, plaintiffs acquired a prescriptive right of user over a roadway for certain discrete purposes based on their past use of the property. We concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to make a different use of the roadway because it would increase the burden on the servient estate and it would extend the right acquired by plaintiffs’ prior use of the property. French, 135 Vt. at 80, 369 A.2d at 1388. Thus, French does not support plaintiffs’ assertion that the reasonable use of the right>of-way at issue here depends on its historical use. Cf. Nelson, 113 Vt. at 172, 32 A.2d at 146 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as previously discussed, we agree 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance (B) holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone (C) recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement (D) holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement (E) recognizing that one cannot have an easement in his own land
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: five years. The issue is thus whether the time Hartman served in prison after the IJ’s improper decision should count toward the five-year bar. The Court holds that it should not count and thus, contrary to the BIA’s ruling in March 2002, the application for § 212(c) relief was not untimely when the IJ addressed the merits of that application on January 25, 2001. 1. The Statutory Five-Year Bar At the outset, the Court addresses Hartman’s argument that the five-year clock stops upon filing an application for § 212(c) relief, which, in this case, would be January 1997. The Court disagrees with that argument. The five-year clock of § 212(c) does not stop when an alien, such as Hartman, files an application for a discretionary waiver. See Gomes v. Ashcroft, 311 F.3d 43, 45 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Falconi v. INS, 240 F.Supp.2d 215, 218 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina  212c (B) holding that the date of death is relevant date of inquiry for the applicability of section 541a5a (C) holding that the relevant date is not when petitioner filed for  212c relief (D) holding that we have jurisdiction to review an aliens legal eligibility for relief under former ina  212c (E) holding that iiriras repeal of ina  212c was not impermissibly retroactive because unlike st cyr the petitioner chose to proceed to trial instead of agreeing to a plea and therefore did not detrimentally rely on the availability of  212c relief
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: within the Act’s exception for petitions “based solely on grounds arising after such sixtieth day” that allows a party to file a petition for review “within sixty days after such grounds arise.” Id. North Carolina contends that our January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, 435-37 (D.C.Cir.2013), constituted after-arising grounds under section 7607(b). But North Carolina brought its petition more than ten months after we issued NRDC — well outside of the sixty-day window for petitions that the after-arising grounds exception provides. Even assuming, without deciding, that NRDC constituted after-arising grounds, North Carolina’s petition is thus still untimely. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b); see also Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass’n v. EPA, 588 F.3d 1109, 1113-14 (D.C.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). The State explains that it did not bring its 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that petitioner was dili gent for equitable tolling purposes where petitioner filed state petition two months after conviction was final and filed federal petition seven days after discovering state had denied petition on the merits (B) holding that a fiduciary corporation was a purchaser within the meaning of  12a2 and was entitled to bring suit on its own behalf or on behalf of its clients (C) holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision (D) holding that a petitioner invoking the afterarising grounds exception must bring its petition within sixty days of when its afterarising claim ripens (E) holding that the sentencing disposition which commits the juvenile to a residential program for sixty days followed by sixty days of community control exceeds the maximum sentence permitted by statute for a seconddegree misdemeanor
[EX A]:
(D)