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:
to use the latter route to circumvent Congress's apparent intent in enacting the AEDPA to bar all review of such decisions. Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1046 (D.C.Cir.1998). In 1997, the Ninth Circuit held that the new restrictions on successive petitions do not prevent a petitioner from bringing a 2241 claim after he has already brought a 2255 claim. See United States v. Lorentsen, 106 F.3d 278 (9th Cir.1997). Furthermore, in 1998, the Second Circuit held that a 2255 petition that followed a 2241 petition was not barred. See Corrao v. United States, 152 F.3d 188, 191 (2d Cir.1998), citing Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 474 (2d Cir.1 the execution of a sentence are properly raised in a 2241 petition"); United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 489 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Corrao, 152 F.3d at 191 ("a motion under
Holding statements: (A) holding that subject matter jurisdiction under 2241 is present in the custodial court when the petition challenges the manner location or condition of a sentences execution (B) holding that a petition under 2241 attacks the execution of a sen tence while a 2255 petition attacks the validity of a judgment and sentence (C) holding that an attack on the computation and execution of a sentence must come in the form of a 2241 petition (D) holding that 2255 is unavailable to attack execution of sentence (E) holding that it is well settled in this jurisdiction and elsewhere that 2255 will lie only to attack the imposition of a sentence and that an attack on the execution thereof may be accomplished only by way of habeas corpus in the district of confinement

Ex Output:
(C)

Ex Input:
of death which does not meet these requirements is voidable by the donor (if he recovers) or his personal representative. Hulley v. Chedic, 22 Nev. 127,146, 36 P. 783 (1894). In other words, a gift in contemplation of death'is presumptively voidable by the personal representative of the deceased, and the presumption may be rebutted by the donee with clear and convincing evidence of the six elements listed above. Although Goldsworthy and Hulley are the only Nevada cases ever to have examined the gift causa mortis doctrine, and they have never been overruled, at least one Nevada case has suggested (in a different context) that the burden of proof may not be on the donee. North Arlington Medical Building, Inc. v. Sanchez Construction Company, 86 Nev. 515, 521, 471 P.2d 240, 244 (Nev.1970) (<HOLDING>). North Arlington is not really on point,
Holding statements: (A) holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable (B) holding that inter vivos gift to minor is presumptively effective under nrs 167040 (C) holding that the purpose of nrs 1760551 is to ensure that all time served is credited towards a defendants ultimate sentence (D) holding that belowguidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable (E) holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
show the hostile treatment was based on their protected status."). Indeed, Plaintiff herself believed that much of the hostility she faced was because she had cooperated with the investigation of the onion incident and created a patient-care report for the medication that was used on Roberts, which report contradicted a supervisor's explanation. Hostile treatment based on Plaintiffs cooperation in the investigation does not provide evidence that these incidents were motivated by Plaintiffs sex. Further, even if Plaintiff had presented evidence that this allegedly negative treatment was motivated by her sex, the treatment was not sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to support a hostile work environment claim. Compare Adams v. Austal, U.S.A, L.L.C., 754 F.3d 1240, 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>) and Gupta v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d
Holding statements: (A) holding that conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive where over twoweek period a coworker stood behind the plaintiff to create physical contact surreptitiously looked at the plaintiffs genitals in the restroom and engaged in unwanted touching (B) holding that a plaintiff is not required to state the statutory or constitutional basis for his claim only the facts underlying it (C) holding that plaintiff did not establish a severe or pervasive hostile work environment where the complained of conduct was episodic but not so frequent as to become pervasive was never severe was never physically threatening though occasionally discomforting or mildly humiliating and significantly was never according to the record an impediment to the plaintiffs work performance (D) holding that harassing conduct not sufficiently severe and pervasive where conduct would not have affected the work environment of a reasonable person (E) holding that conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive where an africanamerican plaintiff saw his coworkers wear the confederate flag on a regular basis saw racist graffiti in the mens restroom that he used on a daily basis heard people say the slur nigger but only a few times and heard about a noose being left in the breakroom though he did not see it himself

Ex Output:
(E)