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.

Ex Input:
Id. The district court excluded this portion of the expert's testimony. Id. at 1397. Relying on Downing, the Third Circuit reversed. Id. at 1401. We agree that expert testimony on eyewitness identification may properly be admitted under Daubert in certain circumstances, but Stevens simply does not persuade us that the district court abused its discretion in the instant case. We note that here there were five eyewitness identifica tions, not one. Likewise, as counsel for the government pointed out at argument, there was also testimony that Mr. Smith changed his alibi. In this admittedly close case, we hold only that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony under the circumstances. See United States v. Blade, 811 F.2d 461, 465 (8th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Smith, 736 F.2d 1103,
Holding statements: (A) holding admissible expert testimony concerning factors that may impair eyewitness identification and rejecting that concerning a particular eyewitness credibility and the statistical probability of eyewitness misidentification (B) holding no abuse of discretion to exclude expert eyewitness identification testimony where governments case relied on more than eyewitness identification (C) holding that the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury to consider certain additional factors in evaluating the validity of eyewitness identification testimony (D) holding that a specific instruction was unnecessary because eyewitness was crossexamined and the eyewitness testimony was discussed in defense counsels opening statement (E) holding exclusion of expert eyewitness identification testimony harmless error where governments case included three separate eyewitnesses and a palm print that discredited the defendants alibi

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
rights, it must be settled in court. The permit may thus be perfectly valid, so far as the conservation laws are concerned, and yet the permittee's right to drill under it may depend upon his establishing title in a suit at law. Id. at 191. While we noted that the Railroad Commission "should not do the useless thing of granting a permit to one who does not claim the property in good faith," the Railroad Commission's determination of the propriety of the permit has no effect on the propriety of the permittee's potentially tortious actions. Id. Of course, statutory remedies may preempt common law actions or other standards that may set the bar for liability in tort, but a permit is not a get out of tort free card. Cf. MCI Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hinton, 329 S.W.3d 475, 494, 499 (Tex.2010) (<HOLDING>). But in this case, the statute authorizing the
Holding statements: (A) holding that a state common law claim seeking to require automobile manufacturers to install airbags would frustrate the purposes of the federal safety standard regulations adopted under the federal motor vehicle safety act which did not require manufacturers to do so and therefore was preempted by conflict (B) holding design planning and enforcement of bus safety rules for school bus transportation were not operation of motor vehicle under section 4145 (C) holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle (D) holding the federal motor vehicle safety standards do not preempt jury findings that a bus manufacturers buses were defectively designed (E) holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling

Ex Output:
(D)

Ex Input:
satisfy the requirements of Due Process. See, Rule 7(c)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (stating that an Indictment "shall be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged"). Id. The Government disagrees with the Defendant's contention that the Indictment is unconstitutionally vague, and argues that the Defendant's conduct satisfies the elements of Section 2250(a)(2)(A), since he is a sex offender by reason of a conviction under Federal law, as defined by SORNA, see, Complaint, Docket No. 1, Affidavit of Moran, at 7, and that that allegation, alone, provides the Defendant with adequate notice of the crime with which he is being charged. See, United States v. Templeton, 2007 WL 445481 at *3 (W.D.Okla., February 7, 2007)(<HOLDING>). In the alternative, the Government argues
Holding statements: (A) holding that an indictment was sufficient where it failed to specify which subsection of sorna defendants conviction allegedly meets (B) holding that an indictment under 922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient (C) holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense (D) holding that evidence of an eighteenyearold conviction was admissible to show intent because that conviction involved exactly the same crime as was charged in the indictment (E) holding that an indictment which cites the pertinent statute and uses its language will be sufficient to support a conviction

Ex Output:
(A)