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.

Input: Consider Input: CURIAM. Appellant, John Mark Vaughan, Jr., filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion, claiming that his sentence was illegal under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). The trial court denied the motion, finding that the sentence imposed under the unconstitutional 1995 sentencing guidelines could have been imposed under the valid 1994 guidelines. Unfortunately, the trial court failed to attach the relevant portions of the record to support this finding, which ordinarily would require reversal. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 741 So.2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). However, appellant failed to allege that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when a movant successfully challenges an illegal prr sentence in a rule 3800a motion at resentencing the movant is entitled to be present at sentencing represented by counsel with an opportunity to present mitigating evidence (B) holding that burden is on trial court denying a facially sufficient rule 3800a motion to attach record establishing movant is not entitled to relief (C) holding motion for substitution of judge properly denied where movant failed to attach affidavit (D) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice (E) holding that a rule 3800a motion that does not allege that the court records show the defendants entitlement to additional jail credit is facially insufficient

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: March 23, 2005, the court held a hearing and, by order bearing the same date, denied the motion, based on the Board’s untimeliness. Discussion Appellant, asserting the interests of the Director and the Animal Services Division, the latter a party to the administrative proceeding and a part of County government, contends the circuit court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration without applying the usual standard of review applicable to decisions of administrative agencies. Appellee has not filed a brief on appeal. The standard for judicial review of administrative decisions is well settled. As summarized by the Court of Appeals in Board of Physician Quality Assurance v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 729 A.2d 376 (1999). A court’s role i 5, 406, 880 A.2d 1118 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Dep’t of Labor v. Boardley, 164 Md. App. 404, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in reviewing a gaming commission decision the court will examine the record to determine if there is any evidence to support the commissions order (B) holding that a reviewing courts task is to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the administrative agency on the record as a whole to support the agencys conclusions (C) holding that a courts role in reviewing an administrative agency decision is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agencys findings and conclusions and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law (D) holding that under the substantial evidence standard the reviewing court must decide whether on this record it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the agencys conclusion (E) holding the courts scope of review is  limited to determining whether the commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the commissioners findings of fact 

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: was allegedly violated on each date, despite the fact that the EOP contained several different provisions referring to various types of acts. Be cause the Counts in the Complaint merely alleged that Corder “did intentionally or knowingly violate the [EOP] issued in FC-DA No. 05-1-1551 on August 2, 2006[,]” without designating which conduct and sections within the EOP were violated, “the nature and cause of the accusation [could not] be understood by a person of common understanding from a reading of the Complaint itself.” Israel, 78 Hawai'i at 71, 890 P.2d at 308 (internal quotations marks omitted). The Complaint did reference in its caption (as opposed to in the charges) Police Report No. 07-016631 with respect to Count I, Police Report No. 07-021001 with respect t 1078, 1081 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Complaint was defective. II. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the hrpp does not permit a broad and freeranging discovery in criminal cases (B) holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law (C) holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted (D) recognizing that the facts that a bill of particulars is discretionary with the judge pursuant to hrpp rule 7a and that other discovery rules are limited in scope might prevent a defendant from discovering the states position (E) recognizing the fact that a bill of particulars is discretionary with the judge pursuant to hawaii rules of penal procedure hrpp rule 7a and the fact that other discovery rules given to the defendant are limited might prevent a defendant from discovering the states position


Output: (A)