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]: States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374, 379 (6th Cir. 2009) (concluding that "[ejvidence that an individual subscribed to child pornography web sites supports the conclusion that he has likely downloaded, kept, and otherwise possessed the material" (quotation omitted)); United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065, 1070-72 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (concluding that payment and registration for a subscription to child pornography website supported a probable cause determination); United States v. Wagers, 452 F.3d 534, 540 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that "evidence that a person has visited or subscribed to websites containing child pornography supports the conclusion that he has likely downloaded, kept, and otherwise possessed the material"); United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68, 74-76 (2d Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bershchansky, 958 F. Supp.
Holding statements: (A) holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit (B) holding that probable cause existed to search the defendants residence because the warrant affidavit established probable cause that the defendant possessed stolen firearms and because people generally keep firearms at home or on their persons (C) holding affidavit insufficient to support probable cause when one cannot learn from the affidavit when the past activities occurred and when the observations were made (D) holding that officers possession of affidavit at searched premises without leaving a copy with the occupant was insufficient to allow for consideration of the affidavit in evaluating the constitutionality of the warrant (E) holding that affidavit supported probable cause determination when the affidavit stated only that an occupant of defendants home subscribed to child pornography egroup
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: at 1459-60 (references to subsidiary as "division" of Kodak not equivalent to evidence that two companies operated as "single economic entity"); Akzona, 607 F.Supp. at 238 (language of annual report and employee testimony describing subsidiaries as divisions of parent not sufficient, even in conjunction with other evidence, to establish alter ego relationship). ... In a case presenting similar questions, the Ninth Circuit found no alter ego relationship was created where the parent company guaranteed loans for the subsidiary, reviewed and approved major decisions, placed several of its directors on the subsidiary's board, and was closely involved in the subsidiary's pricing decisions. Kramer Motors, Inc. v. British Leyland, Ltd., 628 F.2d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir.1980).... Id. at 927-928 (<HOLDING>). Here, plaintiffs proffer evidence that CNOFG
Holding statements: (A) holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter (B) holding that to establish that subsidiary is agent of parent for jurisdictional purposes the parent must exert control that is so pervasive and continual that the subsidiary may be considered an agent or instrumentality of the parent notwithstanding the maintenance of corporate formalities (C) holding that because the corporate parent and subsidiary defendants before it observed all of the corporate formalities necessary to maintain corporate separateness notwithstanding the parents active involvement in the subsidiaries operations the evidence did not establish that the entities were alter egos of one another (D) holding constitutional due process requires that personal jurisdiction cannot be premised on corporate affiliation or stock ownership alone where corporate formalities are substantially observed and the parent does not exercise an usually high degree of control over the subsidiary (E) holding that under north carolina law a corporate parent cannot be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary unless the corporate structure is a sham
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: U.S. Fire tacitly acknowledged in its 2007 papers (and also before us now) that some portion of the ENSR bills relating to the 2004 site work constitutes recoverable defense costs. Yet, as with the legal fees, U.S. Fire made no attempt to pay a single cent, nor is there any record evidence that it made any effort to resolve the sizable remuneration issue. U.S. Fire's apathy stands in sharp contrast to the Museum's multiple requests for some measure of contractual defense benefits in 2004 and 2005; its request for clarification in August 2005 of what "defense expenditures [its insurer may have paid] to date [and] on what terms"; and its express reminder about the ENSR bills in its November 2006 correspondence. Cf. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Maguire, 662 F.3d 51, 56-58 (1st Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). We also reject U.S. Fire's attempt to
Holding statements: (A) holding that insureds criminal convictions were sufficient to preclude relitigation of the issue of the insureds subjective intent for purposes of evaluating the insurers duty to defend (B) holding that the language of 9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees (C) holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss (D) holdingas a matter of law that the insurers diligent investigation efforts and readiness to comply negated allegations of breach especially when compared to the insureds lackadaisical conduct (E) holding that insureds breach of contract suit against insurer raised a coverage issue which was not settled by insurers payment of only part of what insured was claiming in breach of contract action
[EX A]:
(D)