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.

[Q]: was satisfied that protocols were followed after examining their case notes and the data collected. Further, Quartaro testified to the various safeguards Cellmark employed to protect against the risk of errors and to detect any such errors, if made. Accordingly, Quartaro could have been meaningfully cross-examined on the general and specific risks of error in forensic testing, whether the result of carelessness, incompetence, or fraud. See Boyd, 686 F.Supp.2d at 385 (finding no constitutional violation when only the DNA analyst who wrote the report, and not the intervening-testing analysts, testified because “the testifying expert was himself familiar with the[ ] intervening procedures and could be fully cross-examined as to their efficacy, accuracy, etc.”); Munoz, 958 N.E.2d at 1174 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Quartaro certainly could have been 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible (B) holding that a forensic accountant is an expert witness not a lay witness (C) holding that an expert who offers an independent opinion based on another analysts report can be meaningfully crossexamined on the general risk of error in forensic testing (D) recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue (E) holding that an administrative agencys decision may not be based upon inadmissible expert opinion
[A]: (C)


[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
[A]: (E)


[Q]: of old elements. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 51-52, 86 S.Ct. 708, 714-715, 15 L.Ed.2d 572, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966) ("Despite the fact that each of the elements of the Adams battery was well known in the prior art, to combine them as did Adams required that a person reasonably skilled in the prior art must ignore” long-accepted factors.) There is neither a statutory distinction between "combination patents" and some other, never defined type of patent, nor a reason to treat the conditions for patentability differently with respect to "combination patents”. It but obfuscates the law to posit a non-statutory, judge-created classification labeled "combination patents”. Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 714 F.2d 1573, 219 USPQ 8, 12 (Fed.Cir.1983). Medtronic, 721 F.2d at 1566 (<HOLDING>). Cedarapids’s citation of Medtronic indicates 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (B) holding exclusion was harmless error (C) holding that the district courts error in calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the error had no impact on the defendants sentence (D) holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed (E) holding that the district courts error was however harmless in light of other considerations
[A]:
(E)