TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: magistrate judge denied the motion, explaining that Mr. Schueller’s subjective perceptions did not demonstrate judicial bias and his claims were not based on any extrajudicial source to support a bias or partiality challenge. We generally review the denial of a recusal motion for abuse of discretion. ClearOne Comm’cns, Inc. v. Bowers, 651 F.3d 1200, 1217 (10th Cir.2011). For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s order denying recusal, we determine that recusal was not warranted and we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to recuse. To the extent Mr. Schueller now claims that the district judge was biased against him, he did not raise this issue to the district court, so we do not address it. See Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1239 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Wells Fargo’s motion for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiffs waived their bias argument on appeal because they failed to timely move for disqualification (B) holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument (C) holding that party waived argument by failing to brief it on appeal (D) holding argument not asserted before district court is waived on appeal (E) holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: 339 (2005)). As to appellant’s assertion of error by the court in permitting the cautionary instruction to include the additional language, appellant’s claim is not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding. Generally, a petition under Rule 37.1 does not provide a remedy when an issue could have been raised at trial or argued on appeal. Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18, 238 S.W.3d 24 (2006). To fall within the very limited exception to that rule, the ground must be one so basic that it renders the judgment a complete nullity, such as a lack of jurisdiction, a violation of double jeopardy, or the right to a twelve-member jury. Id. at 26-27, 238 S.W.3d at 32. Appellant did not raise an issue in this claim that falls within the exception. See Phavixay v. State, 373 Ark. 168, 282 S.W.3d 795 (2008) (<HOLDING>). In appellant’s fifth point on appeal, he 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation (B) holding that proponent of 404b evidence must identify a proper 404b purpose for admission  that is at issue in  the case (C) holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence (D) holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal (E) holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper

SOLUTION: (C)

PROBLEM: § 65B.51, subd. 1 (2000). Therefore, we reverse the district court’s grant of the motion for a determination of collateral source benefits and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. VI § 10. 1 . The Minnesota Court of Appeals has interpreted the phrase "the date of the entry of the verdict” to mean the date of the entry of judgment. Wertish v. Salvhus, 555 N.W.2d 26, 28 (Minn.App.1997), rev’d on other grounds mem., 558 N.W.2d 258 (Minn.1997). 2 . A nonpublished case issued by this court in 1996 directly addressed the issue we must decide here. See Kissoondath v. Ammerman, No. C0-95-1346, 1995 WL 756840, at *5-*6 (Minn.App. Dec.26, 1995) (<HOLDING>), review granted (Minn. Feb. 12, 1996) and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act (B) holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the oil pollution act (C) holding that tenday deadline applies to motions for a reduction in a verdict brought under the nofault act (D) holding that  3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies (E) holding  3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies and collecting cases

SOLUTION:
(C)