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]: 2d 266, 35 (discussing the reasoning in Brunst as being that "unless these 'time immemorial' duties were constitutionally protected from interference by others, the constitutional provision securing the people the right to choose sheriffs would become meaningless"). It seems incongruous to us that the policy of keeping duties within the office of sheriff because he is elected and answerable to the electors is consistent with the holdings in WPPA II (and, more recently Brown County), where the court held that because the duty was characteristically the sheriffs, he can, as a result, contract with third parties for the carrying out of the duty. Yet, we are bound by WPPA II (and its interpretation of Brunst) and Brown County. See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 190, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 29. For the reasons stated, we reverse the
Holding statements: (A) holding that one panel cannot overrule a prior panels published decision (B) holding that court of appeals may adopt such waiver rule (C) holding court of appeals erred in refusing to take judicial notice of published puc order (D) holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where it appears that the court of appeals itself would not follow that decision (E) holding that the court of appeals may not overrule modify or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: and to seek collateral relief (except for ineffective assistance of counsel)," United States v. Arevalo-Juarez, 464 F.3d 1246, 1248 (11th Cir.2006) (citation omitted), but only in judicial districts that participate in a[n] "early disposition program authorized by the Attorney General of the United States and the United States attorney for the district in which the court resides." U.S.S.G. 5K3.1. This court has rejected Bravo's argument that the "fast track" program creates a sentencing disparity, and we are bound by decisions of prior panels until overruled by this court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. See United States v. Anaya Castro, 455 F.3d 1249, 1252-1253 (11th Cir.2006) (addressing fast-track programs); United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317-18 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 2 . This court has rejected the government's
Holding statements: (A) holding that in a multipanel circuit prior panel decisions generally are binding upon newlyconstituted panels (B) holding that the panel is bound by decisions of prior panels (C) holding that decisions by prior panels are binding (D) recognizing that a prior panels holding is binding on all subsequent panels (E) holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: with Appellant that the trial court erred by denying his motion to correct sentencing error with regard to the mandatory minimum firearm enhancement on Count 5, sexual battery with a firearm, and, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions to strike the firearm enhancement on that count. See Arnett v. State, 128 So.3d 87, 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing and remanding the appellant's sentence with directions to strike his mandatory minimum firearm enhancement sentence because a defendant's sentence may not be enhanced pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, unless the defendant is charged with actually possessing a firearm, and noting that the jury's finding of actual possession did not cure the charging defect); Green v. State, 18 So.3d 656, 656-57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>). We otherwise affirm Appellant's convictions
Holding statements: (A) holding in part that the information did not charge actual possession where it alleged that the defendant carried displayed used threatened or attempted to use any weapon or firearm (B) holding that a factual finding of use or threatened use of a firearm by the sentencing court violates a defendants right to a trial by jury under the oregon constitution (C) holding that aggravated assault was not a lesser included offense in prosecution for armed burglary attempted robbery and use of a firearm in the com mission of a felony because the allegation in the information that the accused carried a firearm was insufficient to charge the elements of aggravated assault (D) holding evidence insufficient to support conviction of attempted possession of a prohibited weapon (E) holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used
[EX A]:
(A)