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.

Input: Consider Input: to recall the mandate discussed in Calderon, by comparison, seek the adjudication of constitutional claims; they do not constitute collateral attacks on the integrity of the court of appeals's judgment. Hence, they differ from true Rule 60(b) motions and must be denied. D. Having distinguished between SSHPs and Rule 60(b) motions, I nonetheless share the majority's general concern that petitioners will disguise the former as the latter to avoid AEDPA's restrictions. We must craft a holding that curtails this abuse. We do not write on a blank slate here, as virtually all of our sister circuits have addressed this issue. Some circuits have held that all Rule 60(b) motions are SSHPs, regardless of the nature of the claims presented. See Lopez v. Douglas, 141 F.3d 974, 975 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Gee v. Shillinger, 1998 WL 43155, *1-*2, 1998
Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court erred in failing to recharacterize a rule 60b motion as an sshp and reversing with the instruction to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (B) holding that defenses under rule 60b may be waived (C) holding without specifying exceptions that rule 60b motions are sshps under aedpa (D) holding without extended discussion that even if the district court should have construed the petitioners motion under 18 usc 3582c2 as a rule 60b motion the court would nonetheless have had to recharacterize the rule 60b motion as an sshp (E) holding without extended discussion that the peti tioners rule 60b motion was an sshp under aedpa

Output: (E)

Input: Consider Input: of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue. 6 . The Supreme Court of Connecticut has already rejected the ex loci delicti rule in workers' compensation actions in favor of "interest analysis" and the Restatement (Second) "most significant relationship" approach. See Simaitis v. Flood, 182 Conn. 24, 29-33, 437 A.2d 828, 831-32 (1980); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 181 (1971). 7 . See Conn.Gen.Stat. 52-555 (1977) (measure of wrongful death recovery equal to value of decedent's life and expenses); Marko v. Stop and Shop, Inc., 169 Conn. 550, 553, 364 A.2d 217, 219 (1975) (<HOLDING>); see also Halstead II, supra, 535 F.Supp. at
Holding statements: (A) holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective (B) holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control (C) recognizing that a violation of the mbta is a strict liability offense (D) recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability (E) recognizing strict product liability actions

Output: (E)

Input: Consider Input: is no evidence that the immigration authorities have unreasonably prolonged [Young's] removal proceedings and consequent detention." Debel, 2014 WL 1689042, at *6; see also Demore, 538 U.S. at 532-33, 123 S.Ct. 1708 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing the lack of evidence of "an unreasonable delay by the [Government] in pursuing or completing deportation proceedings"); cf. Ly, 351 F.3d at 272 (noting that the petitioner's detention was lengthened due to "the INS drag[ging] its heels indefinitely in making a decision"). Nor is there any "indication that [Young's] continued detention ... will last indefinitely," or as discussed above that his ultimate removal is unlikely. Orsino, 942 F.Supp.2d at 410; accord Debel, 2014 WL 1689042, at *6; cf. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 702, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (<HOLDING>); Monestime v. Reilly, 704 F.Supp.2d 453,
Holding statements: (A) holding that an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future (B) holding if there has been no termination of employment there has been no layoff or reduction in force (C) holding that it is not known legally that an offense has been committed until there is a conviction (D) recognizing that at a bond hearing there is no limit to the discretionary factors that may be considered in determining whether to detain an alien pending a decision on removal (E) holding that the ins lacks authority under 1231a6 to detain a resident alien for more than a reasonable time beyond the removal period if there is no reasonable likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future
Output: (A)