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]: on the foregoing, we conclude that Layman's and Sparks' sentences are inappropriate. Like Quiroz, ten years of Layman's sentence should be suspended to probation and five years of Sparks' sentence should be suspended to probation. IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence Lastly, Sparks argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his felony murder conviction because he did not enter the house. However, Sparks, whose cursory argument is less than a page long, cites no cases in support of his claim. Sparks has therefore waived this issue on appeal. See Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (stating that each argument must be supported by citations to authorities, statutes, and the appendix or parts of the record on appeal relied on); Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. Waiver notwithstanding, we
Holding statements: (A) holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned (B) holding that a claim is waived on appeal when not supported by citation to relevant authority (C) holding that a party waives an argument if the party fails to elaborate or provide any citation of authority in support of the argument (D) holding when a party fails to provide arguments or supporting authority for his assertion the party is deemed to have abandoned the issue (E) holding that an issue is waived when a party fails to provide adequate citation to authority
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: omitted)). This is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires a finder of fact to consider numerous relevant factors, including "substantially identical management, business purpose, operation, equipment, customers, supervision, and ownership." Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Rabine, 161 F.3d 427, 433 (7th Cir.1998). Intent to evade union obligations, though not the keystone to proving alter ego in some other circuits, is the most critical factor in the Seventh Circuit. Compare Trs. of Pension, Welfare & Vacation Fringe Benefit Funds of IBEW Local 701 v. Favia Elec. Co., 995 F.2d 785, 789 (7th Cir.1993) (quoting Centor Contractors, 831 F.2d at 1312), with Rd. Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO v. Dorn Sprinkler Co., 669 F.3d 790, 794 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). 1. Ownership, management, operation, and
Holding statements: (A) holding that collective bargaining agreements cannot compel the arbitration of statutory rights (B) holding that intent to evade collective bargaining obligations is merely one factor among many that must be considered (C) holding that exercising control over other participants is one factor among many that should be considered not a requirement for applying the adjustment (D) holding that a debtorinpossession could reject a collective bargaining agreement (E) holding terms of collective bargaining agreement only a factor in weighing reasonableness of accommodation
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: consistent with innocent conduct and showed "no indicia of criminal activity." We find, however, that, taken together as a whole, Alston's actions after he drove by the patrol car were sufficiently suspicious to provide Hixson with the requisite reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Alston from walking away from the scene. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 22-23, 88 S.Ct. at 1880-81 (concluding that defendant's "series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself," in combination warranted further investigation by the police). Hixson's brief detention of Alston was therefore reasonable to allow the officer to confirm or dispel his suspicion and to maintain the status quo during the course of the lawful roadside investigatory stop. See Hatcher, 14 Va.App. at 491-92, 419 S.E.2d at 259 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Mancillas, 183 F.3d
Holding statements: (A) holding that a police officers brief detention of a passenger who walked away from a lawfully stopped vehicle is warranted to promote the officers significant interest in gaining control of and monitoring a potentially hazardous roadside stop in order to conduct his lawful investigation particularly when events subsequent to the lawful traffic stop focus suspicion on the passenger (B) holding that fourth amendment rights of a passenger of a legally stopped vehicle were not violated by police officers instruction that he remain inside the vehicle during traffic stop after passenger repeatedly tried to exit (C) holding police officers making a traffic stop could order passengers out of the stopped car (D) holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction (E) holding that police officer was not justified in detaining a passenger who exited and began to walk away from a lawfully stopped vehicle absent an articulated reason as to why it was necessary to detain the passenger for the officers safety
[EX A]:
(A)