instruction:
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.
question:
(3) the de fendant's culpability in the fraud perpetrated by the controlled person. See Securities & Exchange Com'n v. First Jersey Securities, Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1472 (2d Cir.1996). First, as the Court has found, plaintiffs have failed properly to plead a violation of the 1934 Act. Second, as we also have noted, plaintiffs have failed properly to allege scienter and/or culpability on the part of "Merrill Lynch." Even had we found a properly pled violation of the 1934 Act, we would not automatically impute this violation to "Merrill Lynch" as a controlling entity. See Baesa, 969 F.Supp. at 242 ("[T]he law in this circuit is clear that a subsidiary's fraud cannot be automatically imputed to its corporate parent."). See also Chill v. General Elec. Co., 101 F.3d 263, 270 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Novak, 997 F.Supp. at 435. Finally the Court
Holding statements: (A) holding that a parent must exercise some control over the subsidiarys activities which does not require that the subsidiary be controlled to an ultimate degree by its parent although something more than mere passive investment by the parent is required the parent must have and exercise control and direction over the affairs of its subsidiary in order for venue to be proper (B) holding that district court has the power to decide what portion of subsidiarys income should be reallocated to its parent (C) holding that a parent company would at the very least have to have been deliberately blind to its subsidiarys fraud in order to have the requisite scienter (D) holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible (E) holding that a subsidiarys contacts can be imputed for purposes of service of process where a parent uses the subsidiary to do what it otherwise would have done itself
answer:
(C)

question:
intent and the public authority defense at a new trial, it should also provide an appropriate instruction articulating that reliance on the apparent authority of a government official is not a viable defense. 7 . In light of our conclusion that the district court properly granted a new trial, we need address only one additional issue on appeal. Michael contends that his indictment was defective because it failed to provide him with proper notice of the three drug-related violations underlying the continuing criminal enterprise count. His argument is without merit, however, because the CCE count in the indictment expressly incorporated by reference the predicate drug violations upon which the jury relied in convicting Michael. See United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 863 (4th Cir.1996)
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a court is permitted to rely on documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice (B) holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct (C) holding that an indictment which incorporated by reference the predicate drugrelated violations was sufficient to provide adequate notice for a cce count (D) holding that a single implicit reference to the email in which the complaint makes no explicit reference to nor does it quote at all from is insufficient to establish that the email was incorporated by reference into the complaint (E) holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense
answer:
(C)

question:
is some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance." Id. The actual length of delay necessary to warrant an application of the other factors in the balancing test is not defined by the Constitution, but must be considered in light of the circumstances of the particular case. Id. at 530-31, 92 S.Ct. at 2191-92. A delay of less than one year will rarely qualify as "presumptively prejudicial" for purposes of triggering the Barker inquiry. See Doggett v. United States, U.S. -, - n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 2691 n. 1, 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992). The legally relevant delay in this case was only ninety-two days, a period insufficient to presume prejudice. See United States v. Vanella, 619 F.2d 384, 386 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Under Barker, we need not even consider the
Holding statements: (A) holding that a relatively brief delay of less than one hundred days certainly does not rise to the level of presumptive prejudice (B) holding thirty days in disciplinary segregation does not rise to the level of punishment invoking the due process clause (C) holding that a limited financial hardship exception to the schools uniform policy does not rise to the level of a system of individualized exemptions (D) holding any improper delegation did not rise to level of plain error (E) holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum
answer:
(A)