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.

[Q]: carrying it during and in relation to such a crime, with additional penalties attaching if the firearm was brandished or discharged. See 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). Whether the defendant was accountable for one firearm or ten, however, is completely irrelevant to the commission of the 924(c) offense. Thus, because 924(c) pertains to particular unlawful uses of a firearm while 2K2.1(b)(l) pertains to the number of firearms involved, these two enhancements punish different types of conduct. We therefore conclude that enhancing a defendant's offense level based on the number of weapons involved in the offense underlying his 924(c) conviction does not constitute impermissible double counting under the Guidelines. Accord United States v. Terrell, 608 F.3d 679, 683-84 (10th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Vincent, 20 F.3d
Holding statements: (A) holding that trading drugs for a gun violates the in furtherance of prong of 924c (B) holding that evidence is sufficient for 924c conviction where it shows weapons proximity to drugs and its accessibility (C) holding that an enhancement for an express threat of death may not be applied to the sentence for robbery when the threat is related to the use of the firearm and the defendant has a 924c sentence for the same firearm (D) holding that because the number of weapons involved in the underlying offense to a 924c conviction is a separate type of offense conduct than that punished by 924c itself the district court did not engage in doublecounting when it applied an increase under 2k21bla in conjunction with the sentence for violating 924c (E) holding without discussion that the district court erred by applying the numberofweapons enhancement to an offense underlying the defendants 924c conviction
[A]: (D)

[Q]: remedy which is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of a person's detention." Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381, 97 S.Ct. 1224, 51 L.Ed.2d 411 (1977); see also St 06 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (same). Whether RIDA created an adequate substitute for habeas corpus for those aliens to whom a petition for review is available, however, is different from whether RIDA created any adequate substitute for those aliens for whom it is no longer available. Unlike in previous cases where we have upheld RIDA against Suspension Clause challenges, Singh never had the ability to obtain judicial review of the merits of his removal through a petition for review filed within 30 days of his removal order. Cf. Puri, 464 F.3d at 1043; Iasu v. Smith, 511 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). By the time RIDA created jurisdiction in this
Holding statements: (A) holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law (B) holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus (C) holding that 109g2 does not apply when the creditor seeking relief in the first case received the requested relief (D) holding that a rule 60b motion that presents grounds entitling a petitioner to habeas corpus relief or seeks to add a new ground for relief requires authorization (E) holding that ridas elimination of habeas corpus does not violate the suspension clause where the petitioner had a means for seeking relief direct review and simply failed to pursue the relief that the statutory scheme allows
[A]: (E)

[Q]: decision not to perform an act or on its failure to make a decision on the performance or nonperformance of an act if the law leaves the performance or nonperformance of the act to the discretion of the governmental unit"); Utah Code Ann. 63-30-10(1) (Supp.2001) (immunity for discretionary functions); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, 5601(e)(1) (Supp.2001) (immunity for discretionary functions); see also United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 814, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984) (explaining that in enacting 28 U.S.C. 2680(a) "Congress wished to prevent judicial 'second guessing' of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort" and that therefore, "decisions requir[ing] the agency to est (<HOLDING>); Baum v. United States, 986 F.2d 716, 724 (4th
Holding statements: (A) holding that a municipal corporation was forbidden to construct an auditorium in a park as such construction would practically destroy the lot as a park and convert its use into a public square (B) holding that park services decision not to repave a particular section of road was within discretionary function exception because this section was thirtythird on a maintenance priority list of eighty sections of park road and determining the appropriate course of action would require balancing factors such as beach drives overall purpose the allocation of funds among significant project demands the safety of drivers and other park visitors and the inconvenience of repairs as compared to the risk of safety hazards (C) holding that national park services choice not to repair or improve structures adjacent to a road came within discretionary function exception because the need for such repairs existed on nearly all road sections in the park and therefore given its restricted budget the service was forced to determine priorities and repair the more urgent problems first (D) holding a park rangers decision to terminate an arrest falls within the discretionary function exception to the ftca because such decision was the classic example of conduct grounded in policy (E) holding that a civic center building or recreational building on property dedicated to the city as park property was inconsistent with its use as a park
[A]:
(B)