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]: pre-estimate may in fact operate as a penalty and become unenforceable is shown by the fact that even though the sum fixed as compensation for each day's delay ... is held to be a reasonable provision for liquidated damages and to be enforceable, no court will permit it to go on operating forever. 11 Corbin on Contracts, supra, 58:21 at 523. That treatise then observes that there is "some lack of uniformity in the method of determining this time limit." Id. In general, there are two rules that courts have applied to this predicament. Some courts have held that a liquidated damages clause is inapplicable when a contractor has completely abandoned a project. See, e.g., City of Elmira v. Larry Walter, Inc., 76 N.Y.2d 912, 563 N.Y.S.2d 45, 564 N.E.2d 655, 656 (1990) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Others have held that, when a contractor has
Holding statements: (A) holding that prejudgment interest should not be added to damages awarded for misrepresentation because the amount of damages were not liquidated or ascertainable before the verdict (B) holding that language of contract did not limit plaintiffs recovery to liquidated damages (C) holding that liquidated damages under the adea are intended to punish and deter while contrasting them to the legislative purpose of liquidated damages under the fsla (D) holding that because liquidated damages under the adea are punitive in nature a jurys award of state punitive damages and adea liquidated damages constitutes a double recovery and therefore reducing the total recovery by the amount of the liquidated damages award (E) holding that in the absence of clear and unambiguous language indicating that liquidated damages clause was intended to apply to contractors outright abandonment of the project no such damages should be awarded
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: the conversations as they occurred. Further, this officer testified that after speaking with Diana Buchanan during her arrest, he was "convinced" that the voice on the tape was Diana Buchanan's. Although the district court did not elicit testimony as to all the Biggins elements, the officer sponsoring the recording gave adequate testimony to support the recording's reliability. All the voices were identified, and there was no intimation that the tape had been altered. Further, the testifying officer explained how the recording was made, and testified as to its accuracy. Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the tape as an accurate reproduction of relevant conversations. See United States v. Lance, 853 F.2d 1177, 1181-82 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). C Diana Buchanan next argues that the
Holding statements: (A) holding that the 2d11b1 enhancement was proper where a firearm and drugrelated items were found in the defendants residence where he had also engaged in conspiratorial conversations (B) holding recordings properly authenticated where law enforcement agents who participated in the taped conversations testified that according to their memories the audio and video tapes contained accurate recordings of the conversations that occurred (C) holding that foreign bank documents found inside a persons home were properly authenticated (D) holding that the plaintiffs fourteenth amendment substantive due process claim was foreclosed because the fourth amendment provided protection for their claim that law enforcement officers participated in an unlawful seizure of their mobile home (E) holding that government met its burden with evidence that agents found a firearm and other drugrelated items in the defendants house where defendant engaged in conspiratorial conversations
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: 544 U.S. 336, 346, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005); Lentell, 396 F.3d at 172). Accord Emer e.g., In re Nortel Networks, 238 F.Supp.2d at 629. 115 . Ganino, 228 F.3d at 167. 116 . See id. 117 . Compl. 15. 118 . See id. 119 . See, e.g., 80, 86, 99. 120 . Id. 82, 84, 88, 90. 121 . In re Par Pharm., 733 F.Supp. at 675. 122 . Compl. 58. 123 . See id. 59. 124 . See id. 44-45, 52-56. 125 . See id. 105. 126 . See id. 80. 127 . Id. 128 . See id. 81. 129 . See id. 130 . See In re Vivendi Universal, 381 F.Supp.2d at 182. 131 . Compl. 65-66. 132 . See id. 68. 133 . See id. 71. 134 . See id. 135 . Id. 101. 136 . Id. 69. 137 . See id. 72. 138 . See id. 70. 139 . See id. 73, 80-81, 101. 140 . See id. 73-74. 141 . See Pu o Instruments, 235 F.R.D. at 232 (<HOLDING>). 160 . In re Scottish Re Group, 524 F.Supp.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that scienter requirement was met where gaap violations led to restatement and individual defendants were aware of weak internal controls (B) holding that the failure to maintain the facility in a safe condition or to warn of hazards was an operational failure following the planning decision to operate and maintain the public landing (C) holding that a failure to maintain sufficient internal controls to avoid fraud is indicative of scienter (D) holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud (E) holding that failure to follow gaap without more is insufficient to establish scienter
[EX A]:
(C)