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.

Input: Consider Input: court failed to question any of the prospective jurors regarding their understanding and acceptance of the first Zehr principle, defendant is presumed innocent of the charges against him. With regard to the second Zehr principle, the State's burden of proof, the circuit court questioned the prospective jurors as to whether they would sign the appropriate verdict form if the State had or had not met its burden of proof. This was a "general question concerning the juror's willingness to follow the law" (177 Ill. 2d R. 431, Committee Comments, at lxxix) which did not comply with the 2007 amended rule's requirement that the court question the prospective jurors regarding their understanding and acceptance of the State's burden. See also People v. Anderson, 389 Ill. App. 3d 1, 8 (2009) (<HOLDING>). The circuit court questioned the prospective
Holding statements: (A) holding that plan did not comply (B) holding that such a general question regarding the prospective jurors willingness to follow the law did not comply with the 2007 amended version of rule 431b (C) recognizing general rule (D) holding that the february 28 2007 interim rule was invalid because it failed to comply with the administrative procedure act (E) recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions

Output: (B)

Input: Consider Input: paid with Vested Funds and Seized Funds. And while the majority of the ICE contract price was paid with DFI money, approximately $12 million, the record reflects that $8 million of the contract price was paid with Seized Funds. Thus, defendants have failed, with respect to either contract, to demonstrate that no "claim" was submitted within the meaning of the-FCA. And, accordingly, they are not entitled to summary judgment on this issue. B. Presentment Before FCA liability will attach to a "claim" for payment under 3729(a)(1), the false or fraudulent "claim" must be "knowingly presented], or caus[ed] to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United Government or a member of the Armed Services of the United States." 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1); see also Totten II, 380 F.3d at 491 (<HOLDING>). This requirement ultimately presents no
Holding statements: (A) holding a statement in the motion for new trial entitled certificate of presentment in which appellate counsel stated the motion was handdelivered to the trial court insufficient to establish presentment (B) holding that presentment is a requirement of the fca (C) holding that the fca includes a materiality requirement (D) recognizing that criminal contempt is not initiated by an indictment or presentment (E) holding that certificate of presentment and docket entry noting filing of motion were insufficient evidence of presentment

Output: (B)

Input: Consider Input: court orders denying motions which Burton filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) challenging his departure sentence. See Burton v. State, 923 So.2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Burton v. State, 889 So.2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In his direct appeal and in these prior postconviction proceedings Burton never argued that his conviction for attempted second degree murder with a firearm should not have been classified as a first degree felony. Instead, he simply challenged the trial court's basis fo 2006) ("Blakely ... is not retroactive"). However, the trial judge granted Burton's third 3.800(a) motion based upon his erroneous view that Burton was entitled to relief because his direct appeal was in the "pipe-fine" when Apprendi was decided in 2000. See Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521, 530 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). Because Burton did not object to the trial
Holding statements: (A) holding newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply retroactively to all cases state or federal pending on direct review or not yet final with no exception (B) holding that defendant must have clearly objected at trial to the matter he is raising on appeal (C) recognizing that the pipeline theory allows a defendant to seek application of a new rule of law if the case is pending on direct review or not yet final and the defendant timely objected at trial (D) holding that tillman applied to cases then pending on direct appeal ie in the pipeline (E) holding that a new rule for conducting criminal prosecutions should be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final
Output: (C)