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]: an individual has adequately stated a pri-ma facie claim. Cf. Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1334 (9th Cir.1995) ("An inquiry into the reasonableness of procedures ... belies a claim that liability under [15 U.S.C.] 1681e(b) must be predicated on the effect of that information once disseminated .... The district court was required to consider whether [the defendant] was liable under 1681e(b) before it determined that [the plaintiff] had suffered no recoverable damages."). Several courts have previously recognized the possibility that a claim for actual or compensatory damages under FCRA may include compensation for emotional distress in the absence of physical injury or out-of-pocket expenses. See, e.g., Bakker v. McKinnon, 152 F.3d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Philbin v. Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d 957,
Holding statements: (A) holding in a fcra case that plaintiffs may not rely on mere conclusory statements rather they must sufficiently articulate true demonstrable emotional distress including the factual context in which the emotional distress arose evidence corroborating the testimony of the plaintiff the nexus between the conduct of the defendant and the emotional distress the degree of such mental distress mitigating circumstances if any physical injuries suffered due to the emotional distress medical attention resulting from the emotional duress psychiatric or psychological treatment and the loss of income if any (B) holding that under privacy act federal government waived its sovereign immunity with respect to actual damages but not with respect to damages for mental or emotional distress (C) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the incomplete and late submission of expert reports was not harmless (D) holding that under the first amendment where there is no proof of actual malice damages are limited to actual injury which excludes punitive damages but is not limited to outofpocket loss (E) holding that even in the absence of outofpocket expenses or costs incurred the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding actual and punitive damages when appellees testified about how they felt when appellant obtained their credit reports and violated their privacy thereby causing them some emotional distress
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: limitations was equitably tolled fails because he did not raise this argument before the district court. See Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Grace's remaining contentions lack merit.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the burden to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction resides with plaintiff (B) holding that the plaintiff bears the burden when relying on the discovery rule (C) recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented (D) holding that plaintiff bears the burden to timely allege facts supporting equitable tolling (E) holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction
[EX A]: (D)

[EX Q]: 64 F.3d at 122. The court further noted that the attorney was not an imposter, in that he had graduated from an accredited law school, was originally certified by California as competent to practice law, had practiced law for a decade, and had been tested and found knowledgeable about Pennsylvania law. It also noted that his breaches of conduct were unrelated to his representation of the client. See, also, Bellamy v. Cogdell, 974 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 960, 113 S. Ct. 1383, 122 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1993) (declining to find per se ineffective assistance of counsel where attorney represented client while disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and was then suspended following trial due to health concerns); Waterhouse v. Rodriguez, 848 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1988) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. People, 652 P.2d 595 (Colo. 1982),
Holding statements: (A) holding hearing in chambers was not per se a violation of due process (B) holding representation at a suppression hearing by lawyer disbarred on final day of hearing not per se ineffective (C) holding appellant waived argument by failing to assert it at suppression hearing (D) holding representation by attorney who met all requirements for obtaining license but failed to take oath for admission not per se ineffective distinguishing circumstance from representation by someone impersonating lawyer (E) holding objection need not occur at suppression hearing
[EX A]:
(B)