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: its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings." Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000). A properly filed application is "one submitted ac cording to the state's procedural requirements, such as the rules governing the time and place of filing." Lovasz v. Vaughn, 134 F.3d 146, 148 (3d Cir.1998). As described above, Petitioner initiated several state postconviction proceedings which, if properly filed, could toll the one-year period of limitation. The first of these was a motion for reduction of sentence filed and denied on October 8, 1996. This motion was pending until November 7, 1996, when the thirty-day period for filing a timely appeal expired. See Swartz v. Meyers, 204 F.3d 417, 422 (3d Cir.2000)(<HOLDING>). The Court finds that the one-year period of
Holding statements: (A) holding that for purposes of 2255 motions a federal criminal judgment becomes final when the time for filing a direct appeal expires (B) holding that a postconviction proceeding is pending under 2244d2 until the time to appeal expires (C) holding that time limit for initiating a tax appeal under kansas jurisdictional statute was a limitation upon the right itself so that when time expires the right to bring such an action is extinguished (D) holding that postconviction proceeding is a civil suit (E) holding that the other collateral review provision of 2244d2 encompasses federal review

A: (B)
****
Q: may give such retroactive effect to these legal clarifications because "where ... a court is addressing transactions that occurred at a time when there was no clear agency guidance, it would be absurd to ignore the agency's current authoritative pronouncement of what the statute means." Id. Therefore, unless the new regulation "replaces a prior agency determination," this Court may find that the amendment merely provides an explanation for what the law always has been. Id. In order to determine if the amendments to Regulation E marked a change in the rules or served as an interpretation of existing law, this Court will first look to the stated intent of the Board in proffering the amendments. See First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Standard Bank & Trust, 172 F.3d 472, 478 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). If an agency plainly states that it is merely
Holding statements: (A) holding that the drastic sanction of preclusion of expert witnesses was not warranted based on failure to furnish discovery by the discovery deadline when the deadline could have been shifted (B) holding that a bankruptcy rule equivalent to rule 6a ala r civ p should be construed to give the benefit of extending the deadline for submission to the day after the holiday regardless of whether the deadline is expressed as the last day of a period of days or as a date certain (C) holding regulatory amendment extending a banks deadline for returning checks could be given retroactive effect (D) holding that where a legislative amendment changed the exemption provisions of a tax statute defining those eligible for certain exemptions and refunds the amendment could only be applied to tax years after its effective date even where the legislature expressly stated the amendment should have retroactive effect and looked to the law in place during the taxable events to determine if the taxpayer was eligible for a refund (E) holding random traffic stops for license and registration checks are contrary to fourth amendment

A: (C)
****
Q: Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Instead, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the non-moving party to present specific facts showing that a genuine factual issue exists by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record" or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence' in' 'support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must 'be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252,106 S.Ct. 2505. III. Discussion Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that Dr. Huxol and OMHS deviated from the applicable 78 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Gatewood v. Wash. Healthcare Corp., 933 F.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that emtala does pot give patients a private cause of action against their physicians (B) holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action (C) holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations (D) holding strict control test inapplicable in determining the scope of immunity for physicians under federal law because medical ethics require physicians to exercise independent judgment in the best interest of their patients (E) holding that emtala does not allow private suits against physicians

A:
(A)
****