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: obligations, the United States government must conform its conduct to constitutional requirements. Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 184, 23 S.Ct. 98, 100, 47 L.Ed. 130 (1902). See In re Burt, 737 F.2d 1477, 1485 (7th Cir.1984) ("when the conduct of the United States government is challenged, such conduct must be assessed in light of the Constitution"); Plaster v. United States, 720 F.2d 340, 348 (4th Cir.1983). Where an extradition court finds that extradition would violate the relator's constitutional rights, the Executive branch may not extradite him. In re Burt, supra, 737 F.2d at 1484; Plaster v. United States, supra, 720 F.2d at 349. See also In re Extradition of Mahmoud Abed Atta, 1988 WL 66866 (E.D.N.Y. June 17, 1988) (unreported slip op.) (available on Westlaw, federal database) (<HOLDING>). However, an American court may not deny
Holding statements: (A) holding that juveniles may waive constitutional rights (B) recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify (C) holding in the private sector context that flsa rights cannot be abridged by contract or otherwise waived and stating that in any event congressionally granted flsa rights take precedence over conflicting provisions in a collectively bargained compensation arrangement (D) holding that constitutional rights in extradition take precedence over treaty terms (E) recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights

Output: (D)

Input: Consider Input: this case was scheduled for a date approximately six months after the permanent injunction had expired. The procedural posture of this case is comparable to that of Madonna, in which the plaintiffs challenged their confinements while awaiting a hearing to determine whether they should be committed to mental institutions. 295 N.W.2d at 358. The plaintiffs filed petitions for habeas corpus during their pre-hearing confinements, which lasted only a matter of weeks, but the petitions were not adjudicated before their pre-hearing confinements ended. Id. at 358-59. Approximately two and one-half years later, the supreme court held that the case was not moot, reasoning that "some method of review must exist." Id. at 361; see also Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 208 n. 2 (Minn.2001) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187, 188 n. 1, 210
Holding statements: (A) holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired (B) holding that district court may award money due under a statute even though time for disbursement had expired (C) holding that challenge to oneyear residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since satisfied requirement (D) holding expired child abuse protective order not moot because of possible effect on future custody determinations (E) holding that a first amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot

Output: (A)

Input: Consider Input: begun a proceeding to amend the comprehensive plan, which would have given them a "point of entry" to oppose the project. In Rinker Materials Corp. v. Town of Lake Park, 494 So.2d 1123 (Fla.1986), however, the supreme court held that sewer and roadway improvements within the rights-of-way are not subject to the requirements of part two of chapter 163. See also Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County v. Department of Community Affairs, 560 So.2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The appellants, therefore, have failed to show that the project violates the requirements of chapter 168, or that the comprehensive plan must be amended before the project can proceed. Accordingly, they have failed to show that they have standing. See City of Sarasota v. Windom, 736 So.2d 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. PLEUS J, and ORFINGER, M., Senior
Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern (B) holding that police may approach citizen and ask that he roll down the window as long as the officers do not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave (C) holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen (D) holding that citizen did not have standing where there was no showing of a procedural irregularity (E) holding that appellant was not harmed where defendant never asserted that he was not a us citizen and no evidence in the record suggested he was not a us citizen
Output: (D)