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.

showing he was denied a constitutional right. Because Weaver's application for a COA raises several claims, it is impossible to glean from the present record which issue(s) the district court thought worthy of appeal. Cf. Murray, 145 F.3d at 1250-51 (determining that while court of appeals could not decide issue not specified in COA, it could "construe the issue specification in light of the pleadings and other parts of the record"). Therefore we must remand the record for the district court to specify the issue or issues for appeal. See Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 46 (5th Cir.1997); Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 105 F.3d 1063, 1076 (6th Cir.1997); Hunter v. United States, 101 F.3d 1565, 1584 (11th Cir.1996); but cf. Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). It is so
Holding statements: (A) holding remand for specification of issues unnecessary where clear from briefing appellant had not made substantial showing he was denied any constitutional right (B) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right (C) holding that appellant had waived any objection to an instruction that he had himself introduced and which was amended by the state without objection from appellant (D) holding that application of section 9711h as amended did not deprive appellant of any constitutional right (E) holding that where appellant acknowledged timely receiving notice by regular mail appellant appeared and fully participated at the trial and appellant made no claim that he was harmed in any way appellee had fulfilled the primary purposes of texrcivp 21a
(A)

despite the underlying circumstances. See United States v. Moudy, 132 F.3d 618, 620 (10th Cir.1998) (stating that "[ejvery escape scenario is a powder keg, which may or may not explode into violence and result in physical injury to someone at any given time, but which always has the serious potential to do so" and that this characterization applies "to all escapes, whether or not violence was actually involved") (citing United States v. Gosling, 39 F.3d 1140, 1142 (10th Cir.1994)). C. Sixth Amendment Claim Finally, Mr. Flowers argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by failing to submit the fact of his prior convictions to a jury. This argument is also foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1223, 1226 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM Mr.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the fact of prior convictions under 924e need not be charged in an indictment and proven to a jury and also that the government need not charge in an indictment and prove to a jury that a defendants prior conviction constitutes a violent felony under 924e (B) holding that district court may enhance sentence based on fact of prior convictions under 924e regardless of whether admitted by defendant or found by jury (C) holding that facts regarding prior convictions need not be charged in an indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (D) holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (E) holding that elements of statute which became 924e need not be reflected in indictment for crime charged
(A)

it would be unjust for the estate to retain any benefit it might receive, we find no merit to the Crittells' unjust enrichment claim. IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we AFFIRM the superior court's award of attorney's fees. 1 . Crittell v. Bingo, 36 P.3d 634, 636-37 (Alaska 2001). 2 . Id. at 637-38. 3 . Id. at 647-52 (appendix containing superior court's findings). 4 . Id. at 641-42. 5 . Id. at 642. 6 . Id. 7 . Id. at 636, 643. 8 . Id. at 643. 9 . The Crittells make parallel arguments regarding the trial court's award of Rule 79 costs. Because the Crittells neither appealed the cost award in Crittell I nor adequately raised the issue on remand, the Crittells have waived any claim as to costs. See State Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n v. Carlson, 65 P.3d 851, 873-74 (Alaska 2003) (<HOLDING>); Brandon v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 28 P.3d 269,
Holding statements: (A) holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal (B) holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived (C) holding issue waived because it was not mentioned in brief but was only raised in notice of appeal (D) holding that the caldwell claim is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal but was not (E) holding that state had waived argument because it could have been raised in an earlier appeal but was not and because it fell outside the scope of remand
(E)