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.
--------
Question: of priorities for economic development" were the centers of power in many areas of importance. Harry Scheiber, Federalism and the American Economic Order, 1789-1910, Law and Soc'y (Fall 1975) 57, 97. See generally id. at 86-100 (discussing diffusion of power and rnment's contentions here ... would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States."); id. at 578, 115 S.Ct. 1624 ("[T]he federal balance is too essential a part qf our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene when one or the other level of Government has tipped the scales too far."); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (<HOLDING>); id. at 178, 112 S.Ct. 2408 ("No matter how
Holding statements: (A) holding that despite 1985 amendments minimum jurisdictional amount remains 50000 (B) holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively (C) holding that an unconstitutional policy may be inferred from an officials single decision or act (D) holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect (E) holding unconstitutional taketitle provision of the lowlevel radioactive waste policy amendments act of 1985

Answer: (E)

Question: remanded for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED 1 . In the original petition in the Sullivan Suit, Ms. Sullivan averred that she was represented by a power of attorney appointing Mr. Ban-daries as her attorney in fact and caregiver and granting him "full power and authority and in her name and behalf" to "conduct, man .2d 166, 171 (1971) (report stating that plaintiff had been indicted for adultery was libelous per se); see also Donati v. Queens Ledger Newspaper Group, 240 A.D.2d 696, 659 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1997) (reversing dismissal of defamation claim where plaintiff alleged that item in newspaper was capable of defamatory connotation that plaintiff had been engaged in a longstanding extramarital affair). But see Marleau v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 333 Or. 82, 37 P.3d 148, 156 (2001)
Holding statements: (A) holding that under south carolina law slander is actionable per se where plaintiff is alleged to have committed adultery (B) holding that statements that insinuated that plaintiff was an adulteress were actionable as slander per se under missouri law (C) recognizing that slander per se is actionable without a showing of actual or special damages (D) holding that statement made to plaintiffs neighbors that plaintiff committed adultery was not slander per se because adultery is no longer a crime under oregon law (E) holding that statements imputing adultery are defamatory under louisiana law

Answer: (D)

Question: to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Id. If the sentence imposed is within the properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006). Thomas' sentence was both within the guideline range of 262-327 months and within the statutory maximum of life imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. 841(b) (2000). Because the district court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the relevant 3553(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable. See United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625, 632 (4th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm Thomas' sentence. We
Holding statements: (A) holding that a district court does not have to state on the record that it considered every 3553a factor (B) holding that the district court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the 3553a factors or to discuss each of the 3553a factors (C) holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of 3553a (D) holding that to establish reasonableness of a sentence a district court need not explicitly discuss every 3553a factor on the record (E) holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the 3553a factors or to discuss each of the 3553a factors

Answer:
(D)