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.

was safe to operate, afforded discretion to the FAA to "make its own findings" whether the submitted documentation satisfied that requirement. Id. Likewise, as the district court noted, 49 C.F.R. 385.17(f) is not a "check list." J.A. at 105. It leaves it to the FMCSA to determine whether a carrier's submission provides evidence that corrective action has been taken, and whether the agency has the resources to reach a final decision within 45 days. Such decisions, which relate to a regulatory agency's "implementation of a mechanism for compliance review" and necessarily require "balancing the objectives sought to be obtained against such practical considerations as staffing and funding," constitute discretionary functions themselves. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 819-20, 104 S.Ct. 2755 (<HOLDING>). Discretion thus suffuses 49 C.F.R.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver (B) holding that the faas alleged negligence in failing to check certain specific items in the course of certificating a specific aircraft as part of a spotcheck program involved calculated risks but fell squarely within the discretionary function exception (C) holding that actions against the faa for its alleged negligence in certificating aircraft for use in commercial aviation are barred by the discretionary function exception of the federal tort claims act id at 821 104 sct 2755 because the faas decisions as to the manner of enforcing regulations is plainly a discretionary activity id at 819 21 104 sct 2755 (D) holding that the faas application of a spotcheck system to a particular aircraft was a discretionary function (E) holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision
(D)

Inc., No. 08 Civ. 5653(PAC), 2011 WL 3874821 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011) ("NJ v. DLJ"); NJ Carpenters, 272 F.R.D. 160 (finding Rule 23(a) requirements were met, but not Rule 23(b)(3) requirements). 59 . DI 294, at 30-33. 60 . Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., 714 F.Supp.2d 475, 484 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (stating Section 12(a)(2) standing is limited to "persons who have directly purchased the securities from underwriting defendants in the subject public offering(s), and not in the secondary market"); In re Sterling Foster & Co., Inc., Sec. Litig., 222 F.Supp.2d 216, 244 (E.D.N.Y.2002) ("[P]urchasers in private or secondary market offerings are precluded from bringing actions under Section 12(a)(2)."). 61 . DI 294, at 30; DI 300, at 17. 62 . See IndyMac I, 718 F.Supp.2d at 513 (<HOLDING>). 63 . This of course means that it does not
Holding statements: (A) holding that a party waived the claims she failed to pursue in her merit brief (B) holding that because 544b1 provides only the power of avoidance it does not confer authority on the trustee to pursue state law damage claims but that the trustee could pursue such claims under 544a1 or 2 if the claims could have been asserted by the debtor corporation (C) holding pinter analysis to apply to claims arising under 12a2 (D) holding that a trustee had no standing to pursue claims of fraud against the debtors accountant because under connecticut law those claims belonged to investors (E) holding wyoming only had standing to pursue section 12a2 claims as to indx 2006ar11
(E)

did not lack good moral character, present false testimony, or misrepresent or conceal his criminal act. We disagree. The evidence is clear that Al-Aqaili failed to possess good moral character during the relevant statutory period. In his federal criminal case, Al-Aqaili entered a plea agreement in which he admitted to knowingly committing the crime of mail fraud, a crime Al-Aqaili admits began approximately one month prior to his application for naturalization and continued while his application was pending. Accordingly, Al-Aqaili committed the crime during the period in which he was required to possess good moral character, and it is of no consequence that his conviction occurred after he was already naturalized. See United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 395 F.3d 1190, 1191 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Al-Aqaili's admission that he
Holding statements: (A) holding that the state could not under any circumstances be charged for the delay during the period the defendant was held after his arrest for and until his conviction on felony charges in another jurisdiction (B) holding that a naturalized citizen who committed certain unlawful acts during the statutory period prior to taking the oath of allegiance but for which he was indicted arrested and convicted after naturalization stands to lose his precious acquisition for lack of good moral character (C) holding sorna inapplicable to a defendant who traveled during the gap period between enactment and issuance of the interim rule and was indicted on march 15 2007 (D) holding that the defendant who was indicted for first degree rape and convicted of sexual battery had no remedy on appeal when he requested that the erroneous lesser nonincluded charge be submitted to the jury (E) holding that the defendant could be convicted of sexual battery a lesser crime not included in the offense for which he was indicted where the defendant requested that sexual battery be submitted to the jury
(B)