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: Court procedures or under G.L.1956 16-19-1 and 16-19-6 as to the number of absences from school that were necessary to incur possible liability as a truant. However, the administrative order specifies a threshold number of ten days of absence before a child may be referred either to the Diversion Program or to the formal juvenile calendar. Indeed, administrative order 2010-2 states that "[t]he Intake Department may refer cases to the Truancy calendar if the petition: * * * [h]as at least 10 days of absences and/or states that a student is habitually late or absent from school." We are confident that a person of average intelligence need neither guess nor speculate about the number of absences that will result in a referral to the Truancy Diversion Program. See Moreau, 15 A.3d at 583 (<HOLDING>). Administrative order 2010-2 also details how
Holding statements: (A) holding that the statute defining drug paraphernalia and 564403cl were not unconstitutionally vague for want of certainty and definiteness because they give a person of ordinary intelligence notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden (B) holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague (C) holding that a statute is not unconstitutionally vague if it gives a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited so that he may act accordingly (D) holding flag contempt statute unconstitutionally vague (E) holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague

Answer: (C)

Question: for abuse of discretion, while its application of legal precepts in determining that any delay was excusable is reviewed under a plenary standard). 17 . The Melendez court issued an order granting the petition on October 15, 2002, giving the Election Division Director three weeks to make any necessary changes. 18 . See supra note 8, at 239, 919 A.2d at 1280. 19 . This Court has long recognized the importance of the elective franchise. See Maryland Green Party v. State Board of Elections, 377 Md. 127, 150, 832 A.2d 214, 228 (2003) (stating that Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights "has been held to be even more protective of rights of political participation than the provisions of the federal Constitution"); Munsell v. Hennegan, 182 Md. 15, 22, 31 A.2d 640, 644 (1943) (<HOLDING>); Kemp v. Owens, 76 Md. 235, 241, 24 A. 606,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the potential harm caused to uocava voters far outweighed the burden placed upon the state because of the states legally mandated obligation to provide uocava voters the ability to vote (B) recognizing the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and the right of qualified voters regardless of their political persuasion to cast their votes effectively (C) holding that electors should have the fullest opportunity to vote for candidates of any political party and any restrictions that are destructive of freedom of choice by voters will not be upheld (D) holding that the right to vote is fundamental (E) holding that state may not compel political party to allow nonmembers to vote in its primary elections

Answer: (C)

Question: Cir.1985). In Pelleport, the Ninth Circuit explicitly noted that "[h]ad the district court based its remand order on [a lack of jurisdiction], section 1447(d) would no doubt apply, because, even if clearly erroneous, a district court's decision that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case is not renewable." 741 F.2d at 276 (9th Cir.1984). Nevertheless, in two eases which would not have come within the scope of the Pelle-port/Clorox doctrine because they implicated subject matter jurisdiction, see In re TMI Litigation Cases Consolidated II, 940 F.2d 832, 843 (3d Cir.1991) and Aliota v. Graham, 984 F.2d 1350 (3d Cir.1993), we did not rely on Pelleport/Clorox even though we had invoked that doctrine elsewhere. See Foster v. Chesapeake Insurance Co., 933 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). We discuss those cases and this court's
Holding statements: (A) holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum (B) holding review of remand order based on forum selection clause not barred by 1447d (C) holding order dismissing action without prejudice based on contractual forum selection clause is final and appealable because it terminates the litigation in the plaintiffs chosen forum (D) holding that remand order based on forum selection clause is reviewable on appeal (E) holding remand based on forum selection clause not within 1447c

Answer:
(B)