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 Input:
rely on a warrant to search a house where the warrant affidavit stated that there was marijuana growing near the house and that there was a road from the house to the marijuana). Of course, the information in the affidavit does not eliminate the possibility that the marijuana came from somewhere else. The affidavit states that the trash was found at the end of a lane that dumped out into a rural highway. Admittedly, the trash could have been flung out the window of a passing car, or it could have fallen off the back of a garbage truck. However, when it comes to probable cause, the name says it all; certainty is never required, only a fair probability. When the issue is one of good-faith reliance, even less is necessary. See United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The affidavit must simply bear some indicia
Holding statements: (A) holding that magistrate must have substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists (B) holding that plaintiff was required to plead and prove the absence of probable cause to support his bivens claim (C) holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity (D) holding that the existence of probable cause in a 1983 case is a jury question (E) holding that leon requires a less demanding showing than the substantial basis threshold required to prove the existence of probable cause in the first place

Ex Output:
(E)

Ex Input:
on CRiminal Justice, Bill Analysis, Tex. S.B. 674, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997). In 1997, the legislature amended the child pornography statute to eliminate a loophole in the existing statute that impeded prosecution of individuals for possession or promotion of child pornography depicted or distributed by computer. Id.; House Comm, on CRiminal JURISPRUDENCE, Bill Analysis, Tex. S.B. 674, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997). There is nothing in these materials to suggest that the legislature intended to prohibit anything other than pornography depicting actual children. Therefore, we conclude that the Texas child pornography statute prohibits only the possession of visual materials depicting real children. Because the Texas statute only prohibits pornography depicting actual children, the sta App.1991) (<HOLDING>). Appellant also contends that the statute is
Holding statements: (A) holding twentyeight charges against defendant for possession of child pornography were not multiplicious (B) holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment (C) holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment (D) holding that an overbreadth challenge to a child pornography law was rendered moot by amendment to the statute (E) recognizing continuing harm from defendants knowing possession of child pornography

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
the scope of ERISA jurisdiction and preemption, not in deciding when a 1132(a)(1)(B) claim accrues. White, and the district courts mentioned above, erred in relying on Stevens as authoritative in determining the proper accrual date of 1132(a)(1)(B) claims for the statute of limitations. But see Watkins, 570 Fed. Appx. at 460 (citing Stevens for the general proposition that 1132(a)(1)(B) claims accrue upon formal denial of benefits, but nonetheless applying the discovery rule of Moni-son). In Morrison, we addressed accrual for the purposes of the statute of limitations in 1132(a)(1)(B) claims for the first time, and adopted the ''discovery rule." 439 F.3d at 302-03. There we held that a 1132(a)(1)(B) claim accrues upon "clear and unequivocal repudiation" of benefits. Id. (<HOLDING>). We reiterated this rule in Redmon v.
Holding statements: (A) holding evidence including that insurer only charged life insurance premium that would ordinarily apply to onehalf the amount of coverage actually permitted by policy as written did not warrant retroactive reformation of policy to reduce coverage amount because it did not demonstrate mistake on insureds part and insurance company did not present evidence on what parties agreed to before the policy was issued (B) holding that the plaintiffs deceased husbands benefits claim had been clearly repudiated by the plan sending him a refund check for his first premium payment and an accompanying letter denying his application to convert his portable life insurance coverage to a group policy (C) holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal (D) holding that the insured covered by a group insurance policy purchased through his employer was not entitled to continue receiving coverage for the treatment of his daughters illness after he terminated his employment (E) holding widows claim that deceased husbands former employer and its life insurance carrier were negligent in their handling of husbands conversion of benefits was preempted by erisa finding the liability of the defendants is dependent upon the existence of the erisa plan and the interpretation of rights conferred by it

Ex Output:
(B)