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.

[EX Q]: Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204, 207-08 (2d Cir.2007); see also United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122, 128 (2d Cir.2008). In fact we identify no error in this case, plain or otherwise, because the district court's statement that it had "look[ed] at the relevant conduct, what happened with the fellow you got $250,000 from," and its statement that it had reviewed the Pre-sentence Report ("PSR") and "adopt[ed] the factual information that's contained" therein, are reasonably construed as an explicit adoption of the PSR's detailed explanation for why Patterson's conduct causing a $250,000 loss to a California victim was fraudulent and qualified as relevant to the crime of conviction pursuant to U.S.S.G. IB 1.3(a)(2). See generally United States v. Carter, 489 F.3d 528, 539 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). We further conclude that the adopted PSR
Holding statements: (A) holding district courts adoption of the presentence report constitutes sufficient findings (B) holding that factual findings set forth in the psi not objected to by a defendant are deemed admitted (C) holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report (D) holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient (E) holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: and so require an interpretive step to determine the expressive elements of these processes. However, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever drawn a distinction between the process of creating a form of pure speech (such as writing or painting) and the product of these processes (the essay or the artwork) in terms of the First Amendment protection afforded. Although writing and painting can be reduced to their constituent acts, and thus described as conduct, we have not attempted to disconnect the end product from the act of creation. Thus, we have not drawn a hard line between the essays John Peter Zenger published and the act of setting the type. Cf. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minn. Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 582, 103 S.Ct. 1365, 75 L.Ed.2d 295 (1983) (<HOLDING>). The process of expression through a medium
Holding statements: (A) holding that dating is a type of association protected by the first amendment (B) holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment (C) holding first amendment claim requires actual protected conduct (D) holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment (E) holding that a tax on ink and paper burdens rights protected by the first amendment
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: knowingly and willfully failed to comply with all the requirements of this section, the court may dismiss the case with prejudice. When a trial court finds a petition does not comply with the statute, "it shall be returned together with a copy of [ 2008.1] and a statement of the reason or reasons for its return." Id. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to allow the trial court "to return the petition only if it does not comply with the requirements set forth in 2008.1(B) and (C)," and not for failure to state a claim. Lowe v. Monard, 1997 OK 100, 4, 942 P.2d 732, 733. 115 The Oklahoma Supreme Court "has often implicitly recognized the right of an imprisoned person to commence a private civil action against a third party." Mehdipour, 2003 OK 3 at 17, 65 P.3d at 274 (<HOLDING>). According to Mehdip-our, 12 0.8. 2008.1
Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys fees under adea may not be recovered against a defendant who was not an employer of the plaintiff (B) holding that a ttca claim based on an officers allegedly negligent use of his service weapon was a claim for intentional tort not negligence (C) holding that plaintiff may be heard on his nonconstitutionally based tort claim against his former attorneys (D) holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination (E) holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal
[EX A]:
(C)