TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: dominion and control over" the weapon. Id. at 126 (quoting Evans, 888 F.2d at 895). The case law in this circuit, then, clearly recognizes that under the statute an individual "carries" a firearm when it is within an accessible distance from that individual. Although this circuit has not addressed the definition of "carry" since the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey, other circuits nave addressed the issue and continue to define "carry" broadly. Most circuits agree that a weapon must be accessible to the defendant in order to meet the definition of "carry." In United States v. Giraldo, 80 F.3d 667 (2nd Cir.1996), a firearm located in a secret compa 4 (4th Cir.1997) (finding that firearm need not be accessible to be "carried"); United States v. Molina, 102 F.3d 928 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Miller, 84 F.3d 1244,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where drugs cash and drug scales were found in defendants parlor and a gun was found in a secret compartment in defendants bathroom vanity (B) holding that use of gun was attributable to defendant who aided and abetted armed robbery but never personally carried gun (C) holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle (D) holding that gun found in unreachable secret compartment in vehicle was carried (E) holding that a defendant may not be charged with two separate offenses premised on two amounts of cocaine one found in a box and one found in a bag located in the passenger compartment of the defendants vehicle

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: 677 F.3d 519, 543 (3d Cir.2012). Under the specific circumstances presented in this case, Lewis did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his telephone conversation with White. Lewis knew where White was incarcerated when White called Lewis, as he had agreed to send Shavers and White mail there. Furthermore, Lewis was previously incarcerated at the same prison. Thus, he would have received a handbook alerting him that all telephone calls were recorded and been exposed to a document hanging in the common areas that notified prisoners that their calls might be monitored and recorded. In these circumstances, Lewis should have known that all outgoing prisoner telephone calls were monitored and recorded. See United States v. Sababu, 891 F.2d 1308, 1329 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Harrison, 986 F.Supp. 280,
Holding statements: (A) holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells (B) holding that a customer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers which were conveyed to the telephone company (C) holding that a nonprisoner had no reasonable expectation of privacy when speaking to a prisoner on the telephone because as a frequent visitor to the prison she was well aware of the strict security measures in place and that the code of federal regulations puts the public on notice that prison officials are authorized to monitor prisoners telephone calls (D) holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth (E) holding that no reasonable expectation of privacy existed in a prison visitor room where conversations took place between brothers and were surreptitiously recorded by state officials

SOLUTION: (C)

PROBLEM: administrative or judicial action." 20 C.F.R. 404.957(c)(1) (2011). The Commissioner may elect to reopen a prior decision, 20 C.F.R. 404.987, 988 (2011), but this decision is not reviewable. See Culbertson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 859 F.2d 319, 322 (4th Cir.1988) ("When deciding whether to reopen or to reconsider his own administrative determinations, the Secretary enjoys broad discretion, which is generally not subject to judicial review."). Here, the Appeals Council determined that res judicata barred a finding of disability during the period at issue in Fiske's prior disability application. The Council's inquiry into the ALJ's decision and evidence concerning this period does not constructively reopen the claim. See Hall v. Chater, 52 F.3d 518, 521 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Because the Commissioner's decision not to
Holding statements: (A) holding that additional records submitted to the appeals council are part of the administrative record for judicial review (B) holding rule 38 applies to frivolous criminal appeals as well as civil appeals (C) holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings (D) holding that appeals council must consider evidence submitted with a request for review if it is a new b material and c related to the period on or before the date of the aljs decision (E) holding that appeals council did not explicitly or implicitly reopen case and stating that appeals council must be afforded opportunity to look far enough into record to determine whether res judicata applies

SOLUTION:
(E)