TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: may grant preliminary injunctive relief in any civil action if the granting of such relief is appropriate under the facts upon which the action is based." 16 U.S.C. 3117(a). 3 . As used in ANILCA, (1) The term "land" means lands, waters, and interests therein. (2) The term "Federal land" means lands the title to which is in the United States after December 2, 1980. (3)The term "public lands" means land situated in Alaska which ... are Federal lands.... 16 U.S.C. 3102(1) (3). 4 . Although navigability determinations have not yet been made on most of Alaska's waterways, it is likely that few waterways of significance to fisheries will be classified as non-navigable due to the expansive definition of navigable. See, e.g., Alaska v. Ahtna, Inc., 891 F.2d 1401, 1402-08 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 919, 110 S.Ct. 1949,
Holding statements: (A) holding that river with depths of 1 to 3 feet and usable by inflatable rafts and small motorboats was navigable (B) holding lake on private land was not navigable in fact and there was no right of public use and enjoyment as lake was not fed by or part of a navigable stream (C) holding that riparians owners have the right of access to the navigable part of the river the right to make a landing wharf or pier subject to such general rules and regulations of the legislature (D) holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states (E) holding that congress had the authority under the commerce clause to require private riparian land owners to obtain a license prior to construction of dams even where the river in question was not navigable but could potentially have been made navigable

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: 676 F.2d 969, 975 (3d Cir. 1982); Carty v. Schneider, 986 F. Supp. 933, 38 V.I. 213 (D.V.I. 1997). In contrast, a fine is a criminal contempt sanction if the amount of the fine is fixed and imposed unconditionally as a punishment for past disobedience. See Hicks, 485 U.S. at 632-33 ("An unconditional penalty is criminal in nature because it is solely and exclusively punitive in character." (citations and quotations omitted)); see also Latrobe Steel Co., 545 F.2d at 1343 ("[T]he penalties arising out of adjudications of criminal contempt are generally an absolute fine of a specific amount . . . ."). Criminal fines are retroactive, and may not be avoided by purging the contemptuous conduct. See Penfield Co. of Cal. v. SEC, 330 U.S. 585, 590, 67 S. Ct. 918, 921, 91 L. Ed. 1117 (1947) (<HOLDING>). Here, the June 13, 2006, order was phrased in
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that because a district courts determination of the appropriate fine involves factual issues including the defendants ability to pay the fine imposedthe district courts calculation of the fine is entitled to deference and can be reversed on appeal only for clear error (B) holding that where the language of the statute required the imposition of both confinement of which a portion could not be suspended and a fine the court had the ability to impose a fine and then suspend it (C) holding that a flat unconditional fine for 50 was a criminal sanction because the contemnor had no subsequent opportunity to reduce or avoid the fine through compliance (D) holding that a fiftytwo million dollar fine could not be imposed as a sanction for criminal contempt except through a jury trial (E) holding that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for imposition of that fine

SOLUTION: (C)

PROBLEM: new trial is granted." United States v. Grover, 511 F.3d 779, 783 (8th Cir.2007). "[I]n order to meet the materiality requirement, newly discovered evidence must be 'more than merely ... impeaching.' " United States v. Baker, 479 F.3d 574, 577 (8th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Dogskin, 265 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir.2001)). The district court properly held Lee had not met his burden of establishing reasonable diligence as to the testimony of Higgins. Due to the evidence adduced at trial connecting Lee to Higgins, Higgins was a prime target to question. But, at the new-trial hearing, Lee's counsel admitted Lee and he had done nothing to locate Higgins prior to trial. Such inaction does not qualify as reasonable diligence. See United States v. Moore, 221 F.3d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In addition, Doyle's proffer interview would
Holding statements: (A) holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted (B) holding that to obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence the defendant must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the defendant (C) holding that unavailable evidence may constitute newly discovered evidence if the failure to learn of the evidence did not result from the defendants lack of due diligence (D) holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial (E) holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence

SOLUTION:
(B)