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.

States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374, 379 (6th Cir. 2009) (concluding that "[ejvidence that an individual subscribed to child pornography web sites supports the conclusion that he has likely downloaded, kept, and otherwise possessed the material" (quotation omitted)); United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065, 1070-72 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (concluding that payment and registration for a subscription to child pornography website supported a probable cause determination); United States v. Wagers, 452 F.3d 534, 540 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that "evidence that a person has visited or subscribed to websites containing child pornography supports the conclusion that he has likely downloaded, kept, and otherwise possessed the material"); United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68, 74-76 (2d Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bershchansky, 958 F. Supp.
Holding statements: (A) holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit (B) holding that probable cause existed to search the defendants residence because the warrant affidavit established probable cause that the defendant possessed stolen firearms and because people generally keep firearms at home or on their persons (C) holding affidavit insufficient to support probable cause when one cannot learn from the affidavit when the past activities occurred and when the observations were made (D) holding that officers possession of affidavit at searched premises without leaving a copy with the occupant was insufficient to allow for consideration of the affidavit in evaluating the constitutionality of the warrant (E) holding that affidavit supported probable cause determination when the affidavit stated only that an occupant of defendants home subscribed to child pornography egroup
(E)

563 U.S. 421, 438, 131 S.Ct. 1866, 179 L.Ed.2d 843 (2011). Nonetheless, the District Court and the Plan have cited to the language in the Summary Plan Description ("SPD") as the language of the Plan. We, too, adopt this approach. See US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U.S. 88, 133 S.Ct. 1537, 1543 n.1, 185 L.Ed.2d 654 (2013) ("Because everyone in this case has treated the language from the summary description as though it came from the plan, we do so as well."). Moreover, insofar as McLaughlin and J.J.M. now contend that the SPD was not "designated a plan document" and so cannot control here, McLaughlin Reply Br. 1, we deem this argument forfeited because it is raised solely in the reply brief. See Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). 4 . We have considered McLaughlin's and
Holding statements: (A) holding an argument not raised in opening brief is waived (B) holding that a party waives an argument that it raises in the background section of its brief but not in the argument section (C) holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief (D) holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived (E) holding that an argument is not preserved unless a party raises it in its opening brief
(E)

The Washington Supreme Court upheld its similar statute against a special legislation challenge in Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co. v. Central Heating & Plumbing Co., 81 Wash. 2d 528, 503 P. 2d 108 (1972). The court found persuasive the fact that "the scope of the Washington provision is not limited as to vocation. The subject statute bars actions against any person having constructed, altered or repaired any improvement upon real property." Id. at 532, 503 P. 2d at 111 (emphasis original) ; see also Rosenberg v. Town of North Bergen, 61 N. J. 190, 293 A. 2d 662 (1972). We cannot conclude that the 1965 Act is a special law coming within the constitutional proscription. See Rosenberg v. Town of North Bergen, supra; contra, Skinner v. Anderson, 38 Ill. 2d 455, 231 N. E. 2d 588 (1967) (<HOLDING>). II Similarly, we find no violation of the
Holding statements: (A) holding statute authorizing creation of community councils in certain counties was unconstitutional special law (B) holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law (C) holding 122604a companion legislation to 122603 unconstitutional (D) holding the illinois statute unconstitutional as violating a special legislation proscription (E) holding that illinois public policy did not require the application of illinois law to an illinois accident involving only indiana residents insured in indiana
(D)