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:
if the terms of the health care plan specifically exclude from coverage the cost of an appendectomy, then any injuries caused by the refusal to cover the appendectomy are properly attributed to the terms of the plan itself, not the managed care entity that applied those terms. 4 Respondents also argue that ERISA 502(a) completely pre-empts a state cause of action only if the cause of action would be pre-empted under ERISA 514(a); respondents then argue that their causes of action do not fall under the terms of 514(a). But a state cause of action that provides an alternative remedy to those provided by the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism conflicts with Congress' clear intent to make the ERISA mechanism exclusive. See Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S.133, 142 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 5 ERISA 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan (B) recognizing cause of action (C) holding that ejven if there were no express preemption under erisa 514a of the cause of action in that case it would be preempted because it conflicted directly with an erisa cause of action (D) recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa (E) recognizing the cause of action
answer:
(C)

question:
erred by failing to instruct the jury that a confidential informant's testimony must be corroborated, in conformity with article 38.141. We agree. Our holding that there was some "other evidence" to satisfy the statutory corroboration requirement does not eliminate the need for an instruction. See Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (noting court "might disagree" with court of appeals's holding that there was no evidence ten o the trial court's failure to charge the jury on the requirements of article 38.141 here, but asserts that the trial court's error resulted in harm under the "egregious harm standard" of Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (applying egregious harm analysis to unobjected-to charge error). See Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 632 (<HOLDING>); Saunders, 817 S.W.2d at 692 (holding
Holding statements: (A) holding egregious harm standard applied where appellant failed to object to lack of instruction on accomplice witness testimony (B) holding egregious harm resulted from erroneous jury instruction authorizing conviction based on legally inadequate theory (C) holding that it was prejudicial error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even where the defendant did not object at trial to the lack of such an instruction when the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated (D) holding that where appellant failed to present either expert or lay testimony as to the appropriate standard of care to be used appellant failed to present any evidence indicating the existence of an issue of fact thus summary judgment was proper (E) holding that a party waived an allegation that an instruction was erroneous where the party failed to object at trial to the instruction on those grounds
answer:
(A)

question:
to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transportation Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Ci 2d 719 (2003). In any event, this Court fully discussed the merits of Concepcion's Apprendi claim and concluded that any sente lakely is applicable to the federal sentencing guidelines. Even if held to be applicable, the Supreme Court has not determined that Blakely applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Therefore, the rule in Blakely is of no aid to Concepcion in the resolution of this motion. See Simpson v. United States, 376 F.3d 679, 681-682 (7th Cir.2004) (finding that, even if Blakely announced a new constitutional rule, "the Supreme Court has not made the Blakely rule applicable to cases on collateral review"); In re: Dean, 375 F.3d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Garcia, 2004 WL 1752588 at *5 (noting that
Holding statements: (A) holding that batson v kentucky does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review (B) holding that blakely does not apply retroactively to 2255 motions (C) holding that the blakely rule does not apply retroactively on collateral review and cannot authorize a successive habeas petition (D) holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review (E) holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely
answer:
(C)