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.

a hearing mandated if he can show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from failure to hold a federal evidentiary hearing." Id. at 12, 112 S.Ct. 1715. It appears, however, that AEDPA overruled the "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception, and that at this time, district courts cannot order evi-dentiary hearings unless the requirements of 2254(e)(2) are met. See Shumate v. Newland, 75 F.Supp.2d 1076, 1084, 1098-99 (N.D.Cal.1999) ("AEDPA, however, has 'reduced considerably the degree of the district court's discretion' by imposing threshold requirements that must be met before a request for an evidentiary hearing may be entertained.") (quoting Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir.1999)); Rodriguez v. Zavaras, 42 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1054-55 (D.Colo.1999) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Porter v. Gramley, 112 F.3d 1308,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional (B) holding that evidentiary hearing not necessary where proposed administrative action is based on undisputed material facts (C) holding that aedpa did not codify keeney but instead significantly curtails the availability of evidentiary hearings to develop material facts (D) holding that when a state has given petitioner a full and fair hearing on a claim and he has failed to develop material facts to support it he is not entitled to develop further facts in a federal habeas evidentiary hearing unless he demonstrates either cause for the failure and prejudice resulting therefrom or a fundamental miscarriage of justice (E) holding that an evidentiary hearing may be used to develop the factual basis of a prisoner complaint
(C)

that he was on S.L.'s property, and he admitted that he took cigarettes and a lighter from the patio table. According to the recorded statement that Andrus gave to Detective Le-wallen, after' entering S.L.'s garage, An-drus changed his mind about being on S.L.'s property and decided to leave. The evidence at trial shows that Andrus did not have permission to be on the property or in S.L.'s garage or breezeway. Given the circumstances proven by the evidence admitted during Andrus's trial, the jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that Andrus, when entering the garage or breezeway, intended to commit theft under a standard of beyond reasonable doubt even if he later changed his mind - about committing a crime. See Mauldin v. State, 628 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (<HOLDING>); Solis v. State, 589 S.W.2d 444, 446
Holding statements: (A) holding defendants plea to indictment alleging 8000 theft was not an admission to the theft amount (B) holding that against her will in the rape statute means without her consent and that the fact that the victim was under the age of consent was sufficient to establish that element (C) holding that the defendants entry into the building having been made in the nighttime without the consent of the owner is sufficient to show an intent to commit theft (D) holding that the plaintiff must show felonious intent to commit theft in order to establish a violation of section 8120141 (E) holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile
(C)

(quotation omitted). To obtain a conviction under the witness tampering statute, the State had to show that the defendant believed Bryar was a potential witness. Kilgus, 125 N.H. at 742, 484 A.2d at 1211. Indictments underlying the case charged the defendant with conspiracy to purchase drugs, with obscenity for showing an explicit film to a minor, and with prostitution for transporting Bryar to engage in sex for consideration. Testimony that Bryar had stated he received drugs and money in exchange for sex made the defendant's actual belief of Bryar's status as a witness more probable. Such testimony also rendered more likely the State's version of why the defendant promised Bryar cash, a car, and a Canadian address. Cf. State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 638-39, 484 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1984) (<HOLDING>). On these facts, the trial court could find
Holding statements: (A) holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent (B) holding that evidence of prior convictions is proof of motive for witness tampering (C) holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial (D) holding extrinsic evidence of defendants motive to possess gun inadmissible where defendant did not contest the issue of motive (E) holding that when a defendant admits prior convictions at a habitual offender hearing he waives any complaints about the validity of the prior convictions
(B)