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: the crime charged. If the evidence is cumulative, the trial court should more closely scrutinize its prejudicial effect. If the evidence is necessary to prove an element of the charge, the trial judge may have erred in not sustaining the defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. Moreover, a defendant may have a valid objection, under federal rule 611(b), that the government's cross-examination exceeds the scope of the direct. These added considerations are necessary not only to limit the impact of rule 404(b) on rule 608(b), but also to limit the prejudicial effect of allowing the government to have the last say through evidence of a defendant's prior misconduct. Smith Grading & Paving, 760 F.2d at 581; see also United States v. Horton, 847 F.2d 313, 324-25 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The purpose of Rule 608(b) is to prevent
Holding statements: (A) holding that proponent of 404b evidence must identify a proper 404b purpose for admission that is at issue in the case (B) holding that evidence of threats or intimidation of a witness is admissible under rule 404b to show consciousness of guilt (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

Output: (D)

Input: Consider Input: (second factor is "whether the [regulated] practice is an integral part of the policy relationship between the [private] insurer and the insured"). Finally, despite the MSP provision that the United States can pursue "any entity" for reimbursement, see id. (third factor is "whether the [regulated] practice is limited to entities within the insurance industry''), the MSP provision limits reimbursement to recoveries from "primary plans," whose definition lists only entities which are clearly "within" the insurance industry. See 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2)(A) ("primary plan" means "a group health plan or large group health plan, ... a workmen's compensation law or plan, an automobile or liability insurance policy or plan ... or no-fault insurance"); cf. Kachanis, 844 F.Supp. 877 (D.R.I.1994) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Finally, the Fund raises a puzzling
Holding statements: (A) holding 1012 applicable to feca provision allowing united states to recover from any third party (B) holding that the secretary of the interior breached the united states duty of loyalty despite the absence of any applicable treaty or statutory provision (C) holding that a states entitlement to indemnification from a third party does not vitiate the states sovereign immunity against a money judgment (D) holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant (E) holding that an ancillary forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 21 usc 853n is a civil action for the purpose of allowing a third party to recover attorneys fees

Output: (A)

Input: Consider Input: plea for law enforcement. Richardson v. State, 879 S.W.2d 874, 881 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); Sanders v. State, 787 S.W.2d 435, 441 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd). The State's comments did not go outside the record, nor was it an improper plea for law enforcement. The appellant had been convicted of violently stabbing his father six times in the chest. The appellant's sister Cheryl testified to threats the appellant had made to her before the murder, and on several occasions he lunged toward her in anger, making her believe he would hit her. Asking the jury what the appellant might do next if he was not sent to prison for a considerable time was not outside the bounds of permissible jury argument. See Murray v. State, 861 S.W.2d 47, 55 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). We overrule point of error four. We affirm
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant was entitled to have his plea accepted absent a sound reason for rejecting the plea (B) holding that under the circumstances of that case an argument made for the first time in a motion for rehearing was waived (C) holding that the good faith requirement of the whistleblower statute was not met where the purpose of the employee at the time of the making of reports was not to protect the public but to protect the jobs of himself and his coworkers (D) holding the states argument that the best way to protect the community was to give the defendant substantial time in prison was a proper plea for law enforcement (E) holding states argument was proper deduction from evidence
Output: (D)