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 Q]: for a rational jury to find that Defendant Cloud was a member of the conspiracy for which he was indicted. The evidence demonstrated that Defendant Cloud combined his money together with Hall to purchase large quantities of drugs on repeated occasions. Defendant Hall testified that they would pool their money together and buy an eighth or a quarter of a kilogram of crack cocaine "every day almost." In addition, Defendant Cloud sold drugs on repeated occasions to Collier, Felix, Wilson, Ralph Jones, Jermaine Jones, and Walker. Notably, Defendant Cloud's distribution to Jermaine Jones occurred two to three times per week over the period in question. This evidence clearly can establish more than a buyer/seller relationship; it suffices to establish a conspiracy. See Brown, 332 F.3d at 373 (<HOLDING>). 2. Defendant Abdullah The evidence is
Holding statements: (A) holding that a close relationship between alleged conspirators and repeated large volume transactions were sufficient to establish a conspiracy (B) holding that the defendants purchase or sale of a large volume of narcoticsin that case one kilogram of cocainecreates an inference that he is a willful member of the conspiracy (C) holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators (D) holding that while a simple buy and sell transaction is not sufficient for proof of a conspiracy repeated transactions for large quantities are sufficient to support an inference that the buyer and seller were engaged in a conspiracy (E) holding that evidence of specific uncharged drug trafficking offenses were not extrinsic to prosecution for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine where the events occurred within the time period of the alleged conspiracy and were demonstrative of the conspirators conduct
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: trekker from Nepal who agreed to transport a suitcase from Thailand to the United States. Id. at 658, 663. Customs agents found the suitcase to contain three kilograms of 87% pure heroin, and the defendant was ultimately convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute and importation of heroin. Id. at 658. In affirming the reduction of the defendant's offense level under the safety valve, the Ninth Circuit observed that the defendant "provided the authorities with substantial information concerning the offense, including the names of those involved abroad," while maintaining that he was innocent of knowing the contents of the suitcase. Id. at 663. Vazquez has not so cooperated with the Government. Cf. United States v. Garcia-Sanchez, 189 F.3d 1143, 1150 (9th Cir.1999)
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant was not eligible for the safety valve provision because he never even met with the government to offer information and suggesting that given his undisputed association with members of the conspiracy he would have some perhaps useless relevant information to provide the gov ernment even if he were innocent of drug dealing himself (B) holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy (C) holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to find that the defendant participated in the conspiracy even though he did not have a relationship with all of his fellow coconspirators (D) holding there was enough evidence to find the defendant abandoned his child when he claimed to have knowledge of cpss involvement he admitted that for periods of two years and six months he did not attempt any contact with his child and from the date he canceled a home study until the petition was filed he did not attempt to contact the child or cps or provide support even when he was out of jail (E) holding that the movants assertion that he failed to advise the plea court of counsels alleged deficiencies because he blamed himself for his lack of funds was undermined by the fact that the plea court advised the movant that he had the right to appointed counsel if he could not afford to pay for counsel
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: 1. Plaintiffs' claims against the Carmel Defendants are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Bankruptcy Court's November 23,1999 intended action order concluded that even if the Carmel Defendants did take advantage of inside information, their purchase of the bondholders' claims did not injure Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not appeal the Bankruptcy Court's order and the proposed distribution to the bondholders went. forward. Plaintiffs are barred from relitigating the issue. Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 486, 157 L.Ed.2d 377 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 2. Plaintiffs' claims against the trustee are
Holding statements: (A) holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims (B) holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel (C) holding that third exception to antiinjunction act permits federal courts to enjoin state court relitigation of matters finally adjudicated in federal court including matters that were not raised but could have been raised in federal proceeding (D) holding that collateral estoppel bars relitigation of previously adjudicated matters (E) holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant
[EX A]:
(D)