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]: appropriate relief for such a violation is for the habeas court to “vacate the judgment of conviction and enter a new judgment from which an appeal can be taken.” Id. Defendant argues that the Peak line of eases applies to his situation, and that his appellate rights should thus be reinstated. However, the Peak rule does not apply in defendant’s ease, as the appeal at issue is not an appeal from a conviction. A Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to an appeal from a supervised release revocation hearing. Borrego v. United States, 975 F.Supp. 520, 523 (S.D.N.Y.1997). This follows logically from the fact that there is no guaranteed constitutional right to counsel at the supervised release revocation hearing itself. See United States v. Meeks, 25 F.3d 1117, 1123 (2d Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings (B) recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights (C) recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel (D) holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal (E) holding that most of the fundamental constitutional procedural protections that are normally applicable to a criminal prosecution are not required for supervisedrelease proceedings as a matter of constitutional law including a right to counsel
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: and Defendants, therefore, terminated her employment without notice and an opportunity to be heard. A § 1983 claim for deprivation of procedural due process has three elements: “(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest; (2) state action; and (3) constitutionally-inadequate process.” Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir.2003). Thus, the Due Process Clause protects one’s job only where one has a property right in that job. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff was a non-probationary employee in Alabama’s classified service and, therefore, had a property interest in her position. See Ex parte Moulton, 116 So.3d 1119, 1133-35 (Ala.2013) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that plaintiff can bring action under due process clause of state constitution (B) holding that the due process clause protects only those liberty interests created by the state (C) holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor (D) holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law (E) holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: as to taint the director’s judgment. See, e.g., Khanna v. McMinn, C.A. No. 20545-NC, 2006 Del. Ch. LEXIS 86, 2006 WL 1388744, at *17 (Del. Ch. May 9, 2006) (finding no lack of independence where Complaint alleged that director also sat on the board of a software vendor that received over $2.2 million in revenue from the subject corporation, as plaintiffs failed to allege that $2.2 million was material to the vendor or that the transaction might otherwise have influenced the director’s decisions); White v. Panic, 793 A.2d 356, 366 (Del.Ch.2000) (rejecting claim of director’s lack of independence where the plaintiff did not allege particular facts indicating that $33,440 allegedly paid to director or his firm was so material as to taint the director’s judgment); Disney, 731 A.2d at 360 (<HOLDING>). Here, the Court cannot ascertain whether the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the director of the office of workers compensation programs in the us dept of labor lacked standing to challenge a decision by the benefits review board and finding that when an agency in its governmental capacity is meant to have standing congress says so emphasis in original (B) holding that the attempt to remove  a director by written consent of the board is invalid (C) recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing (D) holding that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that a defendant director was not disinterested on account of his business relationship with the company whose board he sat on because he was a man of comparatively modest means (E) holding that allegation that company paid a director 50000 in consulting fees was not enough to demonstrate that the director lacked independence as plaintiffs had failed to allege that 50000 was material to the director
[EX A]:
(E)