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.

Q: until he received the order in March 2001. While in ordinary circumstances he likely would be faulted for not exercising due diligence to determine the disposition of his motions during the two year period contemplated by the rule, petitioner had no reason to make such an inquiry in this case because he believed that in accordance with the April 1999 order, he had been permitted to withdraw his motions to vacate sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that Snell has pled an adequate basis for avoiding the two year time limitation imposed by the rule. We further conclude that he otherwise timely sought relief to the extent his petition seeking belated appeal was filed within two years of his discovery of the existence of September 1998 order. Cf. Adams v. State, 543 So.2d 1244 (Fla.1989)(<HOLDING>). In response to our order to show cause why a
Holding statements: (A) holding that a rule 3850 motion based upon new facts or a significant change in the law must be filed within two years of the time such facts become known or such change is announced (B) holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody (C) holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances (D) holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms (E) holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor

A: (A)
****
Q: that he was on S.L.'s property, and he admitted that he took cigarettes and a lighter from the patio table. According to the recorded statement that Andrus gave to Detective Le-wallen, after' entering S.L.'s garage, An-drus changed his mind about being on S.L.'s property and decided to leave. The evidence at trial shows that Andrus did not have permission to be on the property or in S.L.'s garage or breezeway. Given the circumstances proven by the evidence admitted during Andrus's trial, the jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that Andrus, when entering the garage or breezeway, intended to commit theft under a standard of beyond reasonable doubt even if he later changed his mind - about committing a crime. See Mauldin v. State, 628 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (<HOLDING>); Solis v. State, 589 S.W.2d 444, 446
Holding statements: (A) holding defendants plea to indictment alleging 8000 theft was not an admission to the theft amount (B) holding that against her will in the rape statute means without her consent and that the fact that the victim was under the age of consent was sufficient to establish that element (C) holding that the defendants entry into the building having been made in the nighttime without the consent of the owner is sufficient to show an intent to commit theft (D) holding that the plaintiff must show felonious intent to commit theft in order to establish a violation of section 8120141 (E) holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile

A: (C)
****
Q: F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir.2004). The Fourth Circuit even characterized it "as a very close question" but concluded that a prima facie case had been made "because a reasonable trier of fact could conclude" there was causation. See id. (emphasis added). Additionally, the Fourth Circuit has held that establishing a prima facie case is, quite unremarkably, a "less onerous burden" than is conclusively establishing a causal connection. See Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir.1989); see also Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 134 F.3d 1222, 1229 (4th Cir.1998) ("Although Karpel presents little or no direct evidence of a causal connection between her protected activity and Inova's adverse action, little is required."); McNaim v. Sullivan, 929 F.2d 974, 980 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). But see, e.g., Kelley v. Goodyear Tire &
Holding statements: (A) holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence (B) holding that where evidence showed plaintiffs supervisor considered transferring plaintiff the day before she was served with plaintiffs lawsuit there was no causal connection showing that the transfer was retaliatory (C) holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct (D) holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case (E) holding that the plaintiff made a prima facie case even though there was no evidence of causal connection other than the fact that the plaintiff was fired after bringing a lawsuit

A:
(E)
****