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.

Example Input: right to additional BLM permits or approvals. See, e.g., Lewis v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 673, 676-77 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 992, 91 S.Ct. 456, 27 L.Ed. 2d 440 (1971); Angelina Holly Corp. v. Clark, 587 F.Supp. 1152, 1156 (D.D.C.1984). They hold no more than an expectancy, the loss of which does not constitute a deprivation of property within the meaning of the due process clause of the Constitution. See Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 161, 101 S.Ct. 446, 451, 66 L.Ed.2d 358 (1980); National Consumer Information Center v. Gallegos, 549 F.2d 822, 828 (D.C.Cir.1977). Their absence from the lawsuit does not preclude the district court from issuing the preliminary injunction. Compare Ohio ex rel. Brown v. Callaway, 497 F.2d 1235, 1241 (6th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). C. Exhaustion Mountain States asserts that
Holding statements: (A) holding it was error for the court to issue a permanent injunction at a hearing to show cause why a temporary restraining order should not be continued via a preliminary injunction (B) holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified (C) holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction (D) recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated (E) holding that contract with construction company rendered inequitable a preliminary injunction restraining the contractors from performing the contractual obligations
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: because it was made by physicians and nursing home administrators who are private parties. The Supreme Court explained its rationale: "Those decisions ultimately turn on medical judgments made by private parties according to professional standards that are not established by the State." Id. at 1008, 102 S.Ct. 2777. The Court distinguished situations where the state "affirmatively command[ed]" the discharge or transfer of Medicaid patients, id. at 1005, 102 S.Ct. 2777, or where medical judgments were made by utilization review committees mandated by federal regulation. See id. at 1008, 102 S.Ct. 2777. A key inquiry under Blum and its progeny is which entity made the decision being challenged. See id. at 1005, 102 S.Ct. 2777; see also Kraemer v. Heckler, 737 F.2d 214, 220 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Catanzano v. Dowling, 60 F.3d 113, 117 (2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision (B) holding 2254d authorizes federal court to review state courts decision only and not explanation of decision (C) holding that state courts failure to discuss or even to be aware of federal precedent does not in itself render the decision contrary to federal law (D) holding that a party losing in state court may not seek what would amount to appellate review of that decision in federal court based on the claim that the decision violates the losers federal rights (E) holding that the decision of a utilization review committee may well constitute state action where the decisionmaking process itself appears to be governed largely by federal guidelines
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: forbids preventative detention for public safety, "that is, imprisoning accused but unconvicted defendants because they may endanger the public." Id. at 570-71, 621 A.2d at 1299. Although the constitutional bail provision had been amended in 1982, the Court noted that the amendment had been criticized because it did nothing to allow consideration of an accused's danger to the community as a basis for pretrial detention. Noting that Proposal 7 was under consideration by the Legislature at that time, the Court stated, "Unless this new concept is enacted, we must continue to evaluate bail statutes as mandated by chapter II, 40, and as discussed in our prior cases." Id. at 573, 621 A.2d at 1300; see also State v. Madison, 163 Vt. 390, 396, 659 A.2d 124, 127-28 (1995) (Morse, J.) (<HOLDING>). My review of the drafts of Proposal 7, the
Holding statements: (A) holding that 3583e2 allows a district court to modify the conditions of supervised release without extending the term of that release (B) holding that evidence of a threat to a witness by the defendant is relevant as showing an attempt to prevent a witness from testifying and avoid punishment for the crime (C) holding that even though the victim has settled a civil claim and signed a release the state is not barred from seeking or the court from imposing reasonable restitution (D) holding state demonstrated conditions of release would not prevent defendant from posing a significant threat not only to the victim but to other young women (E) holding prohibition lies to prevent a lower tribunal from acting in excess of its jurisdiction but not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction
Example Output:
(D)