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]: we held that, The penetration offense alleged in the first indictment clearly required a separate and distinct act (involving appellee's sexual organ with the child's female sexual organ) from the act alleged in the second indictment (which involved appel-lee's mouth with the child's sexual organ). In this case the second indictment alleged that appellee caused the child's sexual organ to contact his mouth ency with a child statute is the prohibited conduct. Appellant concedes to this view, the plain language of the statute supports it, and so does our caselaw. See Harris, 359 S.W.3d at 630 (stating that a grammatical analysis suggests that the unit of prosecution for indecency with a child by exposure is the exposure and, ultimately, adopting that viewpoint); Pizzo, 235 S.W.3d at 718 (<HOLDING>); see also Wallace v. State, 550 S.W.2d 89, 91
Holding statements: (A) holding that three phrases contained within the same subsection of the indecencywithaehild statute defined three separate offenses for juryunanimity purposes when separated in the disjunctive (B) holding that a similar statute created separate offenses (C) holding that three denied promotions over the course of three years where the decisions were made by three different selection officials and involved different qualifications were not sufficiently related to constitute a continuing violation (D) holding that the federal carjacking statute as it existed when the defendant was indicted established three separate offenses rather than a single offense with a choice of three maximum penalties and recognizing that this construction avoided serious constitutional questions on which precedent is not dispositive (E) holding that the legislature can define separate offenses within the same statutory subsection even if the acts are in close temporal proximity
[A]: (A)

[Q]: initiative process." Doe, 130 S.Ct. at 2819 (citations and quotations omitted). Finally, disclosure requirements may permit accurate record-keeping. "[Djisclo-sure requirements are an essential means of gathering the data necessary to detect violations of ... contribution limitations." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 68, 96 S.Ct. 612. Such records further enhance the public's future associational rights by offering voters information about which policies those seeking their vote have previously endorsed. Both the Supreme Court and our court have rejected facial challenges to contribution disclosure requirements in several cases, holding that these substantial interests outweigh the modest burdens that the challenged disclosures impose on First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Doe, 130 S.Ct. at 2820 (<HOLDING>); Family PAC, 685 F.3d at 805-11; Human Life of
Holding statements: (A) holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties (B) holding that federal law applies because judicial estoppel relates to protection of the integrity of the federal judicial process (C) holding that states interest in preserving integrity of sport of horse racing justifies lack of predeprivation hearing (D) holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state (E) holding that a state law authorizing private parties to obtain copies of referendum petitions is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process
[A]: (E)

[Q]: the courts of this state, unless the cause of action arose out of such ownership. See 48.193(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991). Further, the mere execution of a guaranty generally is insufficient to subject a nonresident defendant to the jurisdiction of a Florida court. See Holton v. Prosperity Bank, 602 So'.2d 659, 662-63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also PluessStaufer Industries v. Rol-lason Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc., 635 So.2d 1070, 1073 n. 10 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Cf. Hamilton v. Business Assistance Consortium, Inc., 602 So.2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). 6 . In reaching this conclusion, we did not consider any activities Nichols performed as an officer or director of the different NTS corporations, including NTS, NTS/Residential, and OLF, Inc. See Doe v. Thompson', 620 So.2d 1004 (Fla.1993) (<HOLDING>). Accord Eller v. Allen, 623 So.2d 545 (Fla.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing distinction between corporate officer acting on behalf of himself and corporate officer acting on behalf of his corporation (B) holding that a corporate officer acting in his or her official capacity could not tortiously interfere with a corporate contract because corporations act only through their officers and agents (C) holding that although a corporate officer is not presumed to be personally liable for corporate debts the officer may expressly bind himself or herself to be answerable for such debts (D) holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract (E) holding that determination of whether an official was acting on behalf of the state or the local government is determined by state law
[A]:
(A)