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]: some recognized legal theory. Spinale v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 621 F.Supp.2d 112, 119 (S.D.NY 2009) (McMahon, J.) aff'd sub nom., 356 Fed.Appx: 465 (2d Cir.2009). However, a complaint containing "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged" will survive a motion to dismiss. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). B. Prison Litigation Reform Act As a threshold matter, the parties dispute whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") bars Plaintiffs from recovering compensatory damages. In relevant part, the statute states that "[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a priso N.Y.2002) (Scheindlin, J.) aff'd, 56 Fed.Appx. 43 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). For the well-articulated reasons in Judge
Holding statements: (A) holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint (B) holding with respect to another part of the plra that the court must determine the prisoners status on the date the suit or appeal is brought rather than at some other time (C) holding that the plra only applies to plaintiffs who are incarcerated at the time an action is commenced (D) holding that the plra bar applies to lawsuits brought by inmates regardless of whether the inmate is incarcerated at the time of filing or whether the plaintiff is subsequently paroled sentenced or released (E) holding that the donovan rule applies regardless of whether the injunction is issued before or after the federal court filing
[A]: (D)

[Q]: adopted by this court. Atel Fin. Corp. v. Quaker Coal Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.2003). On this record, the district court did not err when it determined that Roberts had not offered evidence that the monitor was defective. Roberts presented only circumstantial evidence that the monitor was defective. Nevada courts have never directly held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove a defect, yet some Nevada cases have relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of a defect. See Van Duzer v. Shoshone Coca Cola Bottling Co., 103 Nev. 383, 741 P.2d 811, 812-14 (1987) (finding that a bottle was unreasonably dangerous and defective based on supermarket customer's testimony); Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925, 928 (1984) (<HOLDING>). In this case, even if circumstantial evidence
Holding statements: (A) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for district court to allow a mechanical engineer to give expert testimony about a machine with which the engineer had no design experience (B) holding that drivers and witnesses testimony about car steering malfunction could be proof of defect without establishing the mechanical cause of the malfunction (C) holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial (D) holding that a district court was entitled to accept or reject testimony on the basis of the witnesses demeanor and candor or lack thereof and contradictions in the witnesses testimony (E) holding that a cause of action does not arise in negligence when a product malfunctions or is defective and the malfunction or defect results in damage only to the product itself and produces only economic loss
[A]: (B)

[Q]: a showing. Thus, to the extent that Endsley raises issues that fall outside the scope of the COA, we will not consider them here. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); 9th Cir. R. 22-1. The California Court of Appeal determined on direct appeal that the circumstances surrounding Ward's statements provided the particularized guarantees of trustworthiness necessary to satisfy the Confrontation Clause's "residual trustworthiness test." See Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 138, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the California Court of Appeal's resolution of this case was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1); see also United States v. Boone, 229 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Subsequent to Endsley's conviction becoming
Holding statements: (A) holding prior statement subject to crossexamination when made does not violate confrontation clause (B) holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue (C) holding that admission of business records does not violate the confrontation clause under roberts (D) holding that admission of statement with references to we or they which did not directly implicate defendant did not violate defendants confrontation rights (E) holding that the admission of a statement against penal interest made by an accomplice to a close friend in a private setting under circumstances suggesting residual trustworthiness did not violate the confrontation clause
[A]:
(E)