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.

Example Input: initiative process." Doe, 130 S.Ct. at 2819 (citations and quotations omitted). Finally, disclosure requirements may permit accurate record-keeping. "[Djisclo-sure requirements are an essential means of gathering the data necessary to detect violations of ... contribution limitations." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 68, 96 S.Ct. 612. Such records further enhance the public's future associational rights by offering voters information about which policies those seeking their vote have previously endorsed. Both the Supreme Court and our court have rejected facial challenges to contribution disclosure requirements in several cases, holding that these substantial interests outweigh the modest burdens that the challenged disclosures impose on First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Doe, 130 S.Ct. at 2820 (<HOLDING>); Family PAC, 685 F.3d at 805-11; Human Life of
Holding statements: (A) holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties (B) holding that federal law applies because judicial estoppel relates to protection of the integrity of the federal judicial process (C) holding that states interest in preserving integrity of sport of horse racing justifies lack of predeprivation hearing (D) holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state (E) holding that a state law authorizing private parties to obtain copies of referendum petitions is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: position and whether the party would receive "an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped." Id. at 751, 121 S.Ct. 1808. The doctrine is designed to prevent "intentional self-contradiction" and is improperly applied "when the former position was the result of inadvertence or mistake." Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prod., 228 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2000). Thus, the court does no disservice to the important purposes underlying holding parties to judicial admissions by acknowledging that a response to an injunctive action is an evolving position, and the facts and legal positions should be taken in view of the emerging facts as they become known to the litigating parties. See SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prod., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1291 (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). It is also necessary to note that the
Holding statements: (A) holding that courts should avoid constructions that would render statutory text superfluous (B) holding that a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit (C) holding that courts should not use doctrine of judicial estoppel to prevent evolution of arguments but should permit preliminary constructions made without full development of the record or issues to remain open to revision (D) holding that the issue of defendants actual knowledge should not be resolved on summary judgment but should be left to the trier of fact (E) holding courts should apply statutory constructions that make practical sense and do not frustrate legislative intent
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: whether Appellant possessed a specific intent to kill the victim. Again, although not controlling, the Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions offer a nearly identical instruction concerning the use of facts to infer a specific intent to kill. Pennsyl vania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, 15.2502(A)(5). Appellant's argument that our judicial system condemns the use of inferences for evaluating the degree of homicide is incorrect. Furthermore, contrary to Appellant's impression, we find nothing in the instruction of the trial court that the jurors could have interpreted as requiring them to draw an inference. See Commonwealth v. Karenbauer, 552 Pa. 420, 715 A.2d 1086, 1098 (1998), cert. denied, U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1258, 143 L.Ed.2d 354 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The trial court did not tell the jury that
Holding statements: (A) holding good faith jury instruction is not necessary when the court has given an adequate specific intent instruction (B) holding that fact finder may draw reasonable inferences from evidence and choose which inference is most reasonable (C) holding that instruction on inference of specific intent to kill did not usurp jurys role as fact finder (D) holding good faith jury instruction unnecessary when court gave adequate specific intent instruction (E) holding that there was no error where one instruction did not inform the jury that in order to convict defendant of attempted murder the evidence must show that defendant had a specific intent to commit murder but where subsequent instruction did inform jury of this requirement and concluding that the instructions when read as a whole adequately informed the jury of the requirement of specific intent to kill
Example Output:
(C)