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.

Input: Consider Input: enter a residence without a warrant if an objectively reasonable basis exists for the officer to believe that there is an immediate need for police assistance for the protection of life or substantial property interests." Seibert v. State, 923 So.2d 460, 468 (Fla. 2006) (citing Rolling v. State, 695 So.2d 278, 293-94 (Fla. 1997)). Whether an emergency actually existed is immaterial "so long as the officer reasonably believes it to exist because of objectively reasonable facts. The officer's conclusion then may be based on a combination of the 'objective' nature of the circumstances and the officer's 'subjective' perception of those circumstances." State v. Boyd, 615 So.2d 786, 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also Missouri v. McNeely, U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1559, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (<HOLDING>). The record supports that law enforcement
Holding statements: (A) holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable (B) holding that in determining prejudice a court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury (C) holding that the court must consider the totality of the circumstance when determining whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant (D) holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith (E) holding a search permissible where the officer reasonably believed he faced an emergency situation that would result in the destruction of evidence

Output: (C)

Input: Consider Input: policy becomes a composite of factors that bear on a better answer to the question, 'How shall the losses be distributed?' "). Slain and Kripke argued that "[t]he situation with which we are concerned involves two risks: (1) the risk of business insolvency from whatever cause; and (2) the risk of illegality in securities issuance." Slain & Kripke, supra, at 286. Analyzing the first risk that of business insolvency-Slain and Kripke observed that the absolute priority rule allocates this risk to shareholders. Under the absolute priority rule, "stockholders seeking to recover their investments cannot be paid before provable creditor claims have been satisfied in full." Id. at 261; see generally Consol. Rock Prods. Co. v. Du Bois, 312 U.S. 510, 520-21, 61 S.Ct. 675, 85 L.Ed. 982 (1941) (<HOLDING>); Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Prods. Co., 308
Holding statements: (A) holding that claims raised in later litigation were barred because they could have been fully litigated in chapter 11 reorganization process (B) holding that stockholders cannot participate in a plan of reorganization unless creditors claims have been satisfied in full (C) holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions (D) holding that remedies provided in the bankruptcy code for enforcing a chapter 11 plan of reorganization are not exclusive (E) holding that debtor whose plan of reorganization had been confirmed by bankruptcy court could not later bring lender liability claims against creditors where those claims could have been raised in bankruptcy proceeding

Output: (B)

Input: Consider Input: as dictum, we are obligated " 'to accord great deference to Supreme Court dicta,' absent a change in the legal landscape." Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105, 108 n.3 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Colasuonno, 697 F.3d 164, 179 (2d Cir. 2012)). Harris has demonstrated no such change, and certainly none warranting a plain error conclusion. See United States v. Wagner-Dano, 679 F.3d 83, 94 (2d Cir. 2012) ("'The burden of establishing entitlement to relief for plain error is on the defendant claiming it.' " (brackets omitted) (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004))). If anything, the post-Johnson landscape in this circuit suggests the contrary. See, e.g., United States v. Parisi, 821 F.3d 343, 347-48 (2d Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Vargas, 564 F.3d 618, 623-24
Holding statements: (A) holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional 3583e2 modification (B) recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability (C) holding that a coa is a jurisdictional prerequisite (D) holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody (E) holding that a custodial parents move to a foreign state without more is not a substantial change of circumstances that would support a modification of custody
Output: (A)