You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

of a fatally flawed theory. In other cases, prejudice will be minimized by the fact that the party has notice of the need to adduce evidence in support of Article III even though neither the court nor the defendant makes a formal motion. For example, in Bischoff v. Osceola County, Fla., 222 F.3d 874, 882 n. 8 (11th Cir.2000), the Eleventh Circuit held that it was proper for the district court to apply a summary judgment standard on a sua sponte challenge to standing because the plaintiffs were on notice that standing was an issue, as they raised it themselves in briefs. Similarly, to the extent that identical issues have already been raised in the litigation, the threat of procedural prejudice is greatly diminished. See Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134, 140 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, although defendants had
Holding statements: (A) holding that sovereign immunity issues may be raised sua sponte as they bear on subject matter jurisdiction (B) recognizing that in the interest of judicial economy res judicata may properly be raised by a district court sua sponte particularly where both actions are brought in the courts of the same district (C) recognizing reduced threat of procedural prejudice where courts sua sponte determination is based on issues identical to the raised by the moving party (D) holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal (E) holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims not raised below by the alien even when the bia reviews the claim sua sponte
Output:
(C)