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: industry is constitutional." Reply [# 29] at 3. Defendants maintain that "the Court may not rely on a federal regulation (9 C.F.R. 2.126) or on the Guide to conclude that the Fourth Amendment right at issue is clearly established." Id. at 4 (emphasis in original). Defendants further argue that even if the Court considered the regulation and the Guide, they do not limit the APHIS' powers of inspection or set policy. Id. at 5. As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they are not challenging the statutory scheme governing the USDA's warrantless searches, but rather are challenging the application of that statutory scheme by the Inspector Defendants on May 7, 2013 at Big Cats. See, e.g., LeSueur-Richmond Slate Corp. v. Fehrer, 666 F.3d 261, 268-69 (4th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). In LeSueur, the Fourth Circuit closely
Holding statements: (A) holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy (B) holding that under the fourth amendment a party may challenge both the constitutionality of the act permitting warrantless searches as well as the conduct of the government officials in a particular case (C) holding that government employers may conduct warrantless workrelated searches of employees offices without probable cause (D) holding a person may consent to warrantless searches as a condition of a suspended sentence (E) holding there is no requirement that the government obtains a warrant at the first moment probable cause exists the touchstone for determining the constitutionality of warrantless searches is one of reasonableness under the circumstances

Answer: (B)

Question: case. In light of our decision that the parties' dispute will not be resolved by an appraisal proceeding, we need not decide, as appellants assert, whether the district court erred by observing that the appraisal process would be subject to the statutes governing confirmation or vacation of an arbitration award. Nonetheless, pertinent to our holding in this case, we take the opportunity to acknowledge that although some arbitration standards apply in processing appraisal results, Minnesota recognizes a distinction between appraisal and arbitration. Compare QBE, 778 N.W.2d at 398 (stating that "[ajppraisal decisions are subject to Minn.Stat. [ ] 572.08-.30 (2008), the arbitration statute") and David A. Brooks Enters., Inc. v. First Sys. Agencies, 370 N.W.2d 434, 435 (Minn.App.1985) (<HOLDING>) with Johnson, 732 N.W.2d at 346 (holding that
Holding statements: (A) holding that explanations of arbitration awards are not required (B) holding that because appraisal is analogous to arbitration the court would apply principles of arbitration law to this dispute regarding an insurance policy appraisal clause (C) recognizing such a ground for judicial review of arbitration awards in this circuit (D) holding that minnesotas arbitration statutes govern appraiser decisions and appraisal awards are to be treated as arbitration awards (E) holding that judicial review of arbitration awards is narrow in scope

Answer: (D)

Question: Assa'ad-Faltas's claim regarding the University's refusal to give her a certificate of completion for the residency program was previously challenged by Assa'ad-Faltas without success. See Assa'ad-Faltas v. Univ. of S.C., No. 96-2159(L), 1998 WL 792209 (4th Cir. Nov.16, 1998) (unpublished), cert, denied, 528 U.S. 922, 120 S.Ct. 285, 145 L.Ed.2d 239 (1999). Thus, this claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Meekins v. United Transp. Union, 946 F.2d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir.1991). This is so even though the pri- or action was dismissed with prejudice based on Assa'ad-Faltas's failure to comply with discovery and her abusive demeanor during a deposition, rather than on the merits of her claims. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the claim is barred by the
Holding statements: (A) holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata (B) holding that an unappealed contempt order by a bankruptcy court is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes (C) holding in res judicata context that final judgment on the merits is synonymous with dismissal with prejudice (D) holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes (E) holding that the parties stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was a final judgment

Answer:
(C)