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.

Example Input: for a mitigating role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.2. Section 3B1.2 "authorizes a four-level reduction in offense level if the defendant is deemed a 'minimal' participant in the criminal activity! ] [and] a two-level reduction if he is deemed a 'minor' participant...." United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772, 783 (6th Cir. 2012). The difference between "minimal" and "minor" is "not just semantic," United States v. Lopez, 937 F.2d 716, 728 (2d Cir. 1991), and the standards are not interchangeable. See U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 cmt. n. 5 (defining a "minor participant" as "a defendant ... who is less culpable than most other participants in the criminal activity, but whose role could not be described as minimal") (emphasis added); United States v. Friedman, 998 F.2d 53, 60 (2d Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). Both Griffith and the Government focus their
Holding statements: (A) recognizing this distinction (B) holding that there is no distinction in the right to jury trial between sentencing factors and elements (C) recognizing distinction between two types of waiver (D) holding that the district court improperly used the two different standards under ussg 3b12 interchangeably thus blurring the distinction between section 3b12a and b (E) recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel
Example Output: (D)

Example Input: lease, for the first time in his reply brief, thus, he has waived it. In most circumstances a litigant who fails to raise an argument until his reply brief wul be deemed to have waived that argument. Wilson v. O'Leary, 895 F.2d 378, 384 (7th Cir. 1990). This case is before us, however, on a motion for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The inquiry we are faced with is whether the plaintiff can prove any set of facts to support his allegation. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). This court has held that when reviewing Rule 12(b)6) motions, we wul consider new factual allegations raised for the first time on appeal provided they are consistent with the complaint. See Hrubec v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 981 F.2d 962, 963-64 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Dawson v. General Motors Corp., 977 F.2d 369,
Holding statements: (A) holding that a court in deciding a rule 12b6 motion may consider a document that is incorporated by reference into the complaint (B) holding that the essential inquiry in conversion of a rule 12b6 motion to a rule 56 motion is whether the appellant should reasonably have recognized the possibility that the motion might be converted into one for summary judgment or was taken by surprise and deprived of a reasonable opportunity to meet facts outside the pleadings (C) holding that a plaintiff may attempt to survive a rule 12b6 motion by adding essential new facts in a brief on appeal (D) holding that class claims that fail to meet the requirements of rule 23 may be properly dismissed by granting a rule 12b6 motion (E) holding that plaintiff cannot introduce new allegations or new facts in opposition to a motion to dismiss
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: and whether the Tribe's immunity, if intact, protects the Health Board and the Health Board's Chairperson. If the tribal immunity defense is not dispositive as to all Defendants, the district court also should address on its merits Defendants' separate defense that the FMLA is not applicable to the dispute at hand. REVERSED and REMANDED. 1 . The district court decided Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the waiver-by-removal issue based solely on the pleadings, and we therefore "take as true the allegations of the com ancheria Band of Pomo Indians of Cal., No. C-01-4125 VRW, 2002 WL 34727095, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2002) (same), with State Eng'r of the State of Nev. v. S. Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone Indians of Nev., 66 F.Supp.2d 1163, 1173 (D. Nev. 1999) (<HOLDING>), vacated on reconsideration on other grounds,
Holding statements: (A) holding that tribes voluntary participation in administrative proceedings is not the express and unequivocal waiver of tribal immunity that we require in this circuit (B) holding that the tribal defendants removal of the case amounted to a clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity in federal court (C) holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity (D) holding that wjaiver of the right to remove must be clear and unequivocal and that standard was not met by an agreement in which defendants consented to filing of suit in state court but which did not address removal (E) holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal
Example Output:
(B)