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 Input:
relevant facts. See Mot. at 13-14. Defendant, too, claimed in its subsequent statement of the issues that this talk happened between April 1 and April 4 and cited the same supportive evidence to this effect. See SOF, 73 (citing Howe Dep. at 32:7-12, 34:12-19 and May 13, 2014, Howe Email). Because Marks never refuted this fact by offering his own statement of the issues, as required under Local Rule 7(h), the Court could thus consider WWL's account admitted on this ground alone. See LCvR 7(h) ("[I]n determining a motion for summary judgment, the Court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to- the motion."); Jackson, 101 F.3d at 153 (<HOLDING>). The Court, however, need not rest on this
Holding statements: (A) holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion (B) holding district court has complete discretion whether to treat facts as conceded where local rule is violated (C) holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying local rules that excluded some of the material facts offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment (D) holding that the predecessor to local rule 561b3 provides the only acceptable means of presenting additional facts to the district court (E) holding a district court has discretion under rule 55b2 once a default is determined to require proof of necessary facts and need not agree that the alleged facts constitute a valid cause of action

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
abducting, or imprisoning another person against her or his will and without lawful authority, with intent to: 3. Inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize the victim or another person. 2 . Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963, 965-66 (Fla.1983). 3 . See Bedford v. State, 589 So.2d 245, 251 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1009, 112 S.Ct. 1773, 118 L.Ed.2d 432 (1992); State v. Lumarque, 990 So.2d 1241, 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Hernandez v. State, 913 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), rev. denied, 941 So.2d 368 (Fla.2006); Sutton v. State, 834 So.2d 332, 334-35 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Biggs v. State, 745 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Waddell v. State, 696 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), rev. denied, 707 So.2d 1128 (Fla.1998); see also Chaeld v. State, 599 So.2d 1362, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>), superseded by statute as recognized in Davis
Holding statements: (A) holding that when the legislature intends to punish separate acts even ones in close temporal proximity the blockburger test does not apply because the precondition for employing that test that the two offenses involve the same conduct is absent (B) holding that the right to control the means by which the work is accomplished is clearly the most significant test of the employment relationship and observing that many of the other factors enumerated in the restatement second are merely evidentiary indicia of the right to control (C) recognizing that other courts have found the type of test reliable but finding that this particular urinalysis test was unreliable since the lab did not perform a backup test or identify lab test results and state left questions about how probationers diabetes affected the results (D) holding that the faison test does not apply to false imprisonment and observing that the test has no application when the charge alleges that the defendant kidnapped the victim with any of the other specific intentions identified in 78701lal 3 or 4 (E) holding that a defendant charged with kidnapping with the intent to inflict bodily harm upon or terrorize the victim is not entitled to a faison instruction

Ex Output:
(D)

Ex Input:
in light of the participation in this litigation of defendant Avendra (a non-party to the Master and 1999 Agreements)." Thereafter, Marriott appealed the court's refusal to compel CTF to arbitrate, and CTF cross-appealed the court's order staying CTF's breach of contract suit pending resolution of the arbitration between Marriott and HPI. II. JURISDICTION We may review the denial of Marriott's motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(B), which provides for jurisdiction over appeals from orders "denying a petition under [9 U.S.C. 4] to order arbitration to proceed[.]" Marriot order that unreasonably delays a plaintiffs right to have its case heard is appealable. Hufstedler, 703 F.2d at 735; see also Haberern v. Lehigh & New England Ry., 554 F.2d 581, 584 (3d Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). Here, the District Court decided two
Holding statements: (A) holding that a stay order of indefinite length which singles out a claim for extended delay while others of a similar nature proceed is appealable (B) holding that a stay order is appealable because it amounts to a refusal to hear and decide a case (C) holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment (D) holding that grant or denial of debtors claim of property exemption is final appealable order (E) holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired

Ex Output:
(A)