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:
other than delay. The same is true of Mr. Leland's contention that he was not adequately kept informed by his attorney as the case progressed, that Mr. Largay failed to undertake requested actions, and that he relied too heavily on the prospect of a dramatic change in the legal landscape following Blakely up to Booker. But, there is no factual specificity to any of these arguments. Mr. Leland nowhere suggests what an evidentiary hearing would reveal to justify the relief he has requested. If the 2255 petitioner wishes an evidentiary hearing, he must at a minimum present a plausible basis to conclude that the evidence would lead to a different result. Here, Mr. Leland has asserted no factual basis for such a conclusion. Cf. Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48, 61 (1st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's
Holding statements: (A) holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on 2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit (B) holding that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing because the petitioners allegations were not implausible and a final determination of the merits of petitioners claim would be best served by greater development of the facts many of which the government disputes (C) holding that review under 2254d1 is limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits rejecting the petitioners claim that the federal habeas court could consider evidence introduced in an evidentiary hearing (D) holding that the state courts rejection of the petitioners ineffective assistance of counsel claim was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence before the state court (E) holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
203, 216, 85 S.Ct. 398, 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964) ("The Board's power [to order remedies] is a broad discretionary one, subject to limited judicial review."); McKinney ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Southern Bakeries, LLC, 786 F.3d 1119, 1125 (8th Cir. 2015) (noting the NLRB's broad remedial powers to remedy employer violations in the shape of unfair labor practices); Medallion Kitchens, Inc. v. NLRB, 811 F.2d 456, 460 (8th Cir. 1987) (observing that the NLRA affords "the Board broad .latitude in fashioning remedies for unfair labor practices"). To illustrate further, should an employer commit misconduct while she is at the bargaining table, so to speak, the NLRB may mandate the employer to reimburse the corresponding labor organization for bargaining expenses. See HTH Corp., 361 NLRB No. 65 (2014) (<HOLDING>). With respect to labor schedules and other
Holding statements: (A) holding there was no jury trial right where court ordered reinstatement and back pay to teachers fired after desegregation order in discrimination case back pay is equitable (B) recognizing nlrbs power to order reinstatement front pay back pay wideranging ceaseanddesist orders furnishing the union with relevant information and noticereading requirement among other remedies (C) holding that back pay may be awarded to the date of judgment (D) holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court (E) holding in an adea case that when after acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing cut off accrual of back pay reinstatement or the award of front pay was inappropriate

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
(1) the district court's finding that he had actual or constructive knowledge as early as 1977 that the 1974 constitutional changes had been applied to his sentence or (2) the district court's finding that he knew or should have known that laws, policies, and practices concerning sentence commutation that had been enacted or adopted between 1992 and 1994 had been applied retroactively to his sentence in 1994 when he sought to have it commuted. Instead, he reiterates his contention that the doctrine of contra non valentum applies to save his claims from a time-bar dismissal. Robinson's reliance on Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, is misplaced. We have long adhered to the rule that Wilkinson later stated for all federal courts. See Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Serio v. Members, Louisiana State
Holding statements: (A) holding that 1983 was the proper vehicle for a prisoners challenge on due process and ex post facto grounds to parole procedures that were the challenge successful would not automatically entitle him to accelerated release (B) holding that habeas was the sole vehicle for an inmates constitutional challenge to procedures employed by state officials to deprive him of goodtime credits (C) holding that procedures adopted by the state to guide its parole release determinations are not themselves liberty interests entitled to constitutional due process protection (D) holding that habeas petition challenging the state boards decision to defer his scheduled parole release date was rendered moot by prisoners release from custody on parole and subsequent incarceration for violating his parole (E) holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it

Ex Output:
(A)