TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: 199 F.3d at 248 n. 6. Moreover, when the plaintiff declares the sufficiency of his pleadings and makes no attempt to amend his complaint in response to the defendant's challenge pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is proper when the plaintiffs allegations fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See Spiller v. City of Texas City, 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir.1997). In addition, a plaintiff should not be granted leave to amend after being afforded repeated opportunities to do so. See Wilkins, 173 F.Supp.2d at 614; accord United States ex rel. Adrian v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 363 F.3d 398, 404 (5th Cir.2004) (noting that "pleading review is not a game where the plaintiff is permitted to file serial amendments until he finally gets it right"); Willard, 336 F.3d at 387 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, "where a proposed amendment
Holding statements: (A) holding leave to amend was properly denied where the relator had previously filed two amended complaints (B) holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made (C) holding district court properly denied leave to amend where application was four months late and appeared to be futile (D) holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court (E) holding that the trial court properly refused to consider allegations in the disallowed amended complaints

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: case because in Revenue Cabinet, as here, the sales tax statute did not impose a test for passage of title, and an administrative rule did impose a test for passage of title. Id. at 738-39. Here, Hales makes no claim that the impermanence of its materials results in a generally understood, implicit agreement to pass title at some point before delivery. Moreover, our statute requires an explicit agreement on passage of title before the statutory presumption can be rebutted; there is no obvious provision in this statute for an implicit understanding, which the Kentucky court thought sufficient. Consequently, the facts of Revenue Cabinet are inapposite and its result is inapplicable to the case at bar. See also Kurtz Concrete, Inc. v. Spradling, 560 S.W.2d 858, 862 (Mo.1978) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). We hold that the Commission applied the
Holding statements: (A) holding that title insurer not in business of supplying information in issuing either title commitment or policy of title insurance for purposes of exception to moorman prohi bition against recovery of economic losses in tort further holding that contract defines title insurers liability (B) holding that title passes on mixture of readymix concrete because of usage of trade (C) recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim (D) holding in a slander of title action that attorneys fees are recoverable as part of the costs of removing the cloud from the title (E) holding that void deed is neither title nor color of title

SOLUTION: (B)

PROBLEM: his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit hostage taking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1203, and conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(l)(A)(v)(I)(II). We previously held that Avilez-Zamora's plea agreement waived his right to appeal all aspects of his sentence, except for the court's application of grouping under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Avilez-Zamora, 168 Fed.Appx. 803 (9th Cir.2006) (unpublished decision). Avilez-Zamora does not raise any challenge to grouping in his briefs. Accordingly, the law of this case dictates that the appeal waiver in Avilez-Zamora's plea agreement precludes this current appeal. See id.-, see also Snow-Erlin v. United States, 470 F.3d 804, 807 (2006) (<HOLDING>). DISMISSED. ** This disposition is not
Holding statements: (A) holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive (B) holding that the appellate court does not reconsider matters resolved on a prior appeal (C) recognizing the general rule that an appellate court will not address matters that were not raised or decided in the trial court (D) recognizing appellate court may not reverse a summary judgment on a basis not raised by the appellant on appeal (E) recognizing rule that appellate court may not consider matters outside the record is so elemental that there is no excuse for any attorney to attempt to bring such matters before the court

SOLUTION:
(B)