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 Input:
v. State, 175 Ga. App. 234, 238-39 (4) (333 SE2d 103) (1985) (reversing conviction when there was no evidence that firearm found near defendant was on defendant's person during commission of the crime). 32 Carswell, 251 Ga. App. at 735 (1) (b) (emphasi at jury could "consider the evidence concerning the small size and crowded conditions within the residence and infer that it was inevitable" that defendant passed even momentarily within arm's reach of a firearm hidden under a couch that was positioned behind a coffee table containing cocaine). 36 Copeland v. State, 228 Ga. App. 734, 736 (1) (492 SE2d 723) (1997), declined to follow on other grounds, Weems v. State, 269 Ga. 577, 579 (2) & n.2 (501 SE2d 806) (1998). Cf. Ferguson v. State, 307 Ga. App. 232, 233 (1) (704 SE2d 470) (2010) (<HOLDING>). 37 See Martinez v. State, 303 Ga. App. 166,
Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial (B) holding inter alia that a jury may consider a defendants appearance at trial in conjunction with the evidence submitted at trial in order to resolve conflicts in the testimony presented (C) holding that the trial court properly added a party defendant to conform to the evidence presented at the trial (D) holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requires the jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial (E) holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requiresthe jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In Landgraf, the Court noted that a statute only truly operates retroactively if applying it would "impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Id. 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also RTC v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 30 F.3d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir.1994)(analyzing retroactivity of lease repudiation damage limitation provision of FIRREA). Thus, like other courts that have analyzed similar FIRREA provisions, we must address prior banking law to determine whether application of the damage limitation provisions of 1821(e)(3) would have the retroactive effect defined in Landgraf. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit, 30 F.3d at 1388 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that, in the Crafts' case, it
Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is not retroactive (B) holding that firreas damage limitations for repudiation of leases worked no substantive change in the law and thus their application was not retroactive (C) holding retroactive application (D) holding no retroactive application (E) recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
candidate whose name appears on the sign could be prosecuted for the state employee's misdeed, even though the candidate did not know the volunteer personally; did not solicit the help; and, had no idea that the person joining him to spread his campaign message was even a state employee. If applied in this fashion, we agree with Mr. Siplin that this statute would be unconstitutional on both over-breadth and substantive due process grounds. However, criminal statutes are generally read to include a mens rea element, even when not expressly included in the statute. E.g., State v. Giorgetti 868 So.2d 512, 515-516 (Fla.2004); see also, State v. Oxx, 417 So.2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Deehl v. Knox, 414 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); but see, Suit v. State, 906 So.2d 1013, 1022 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). As explained in Giorgetti there are two
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that our task as a reviewing court is to afford a logical construction according to the general terms and intentions of the entire act and that it is axiomatic that we construe the statute as a whole entity in order to arrive at a construction which avoids illogical results (B) holding that the general equitable tolling doctrine is read into every statute of limitations (C) recognizing that unreversed statutory construction is to be held part of the statute as if originally so written (D) recognizing this rule but concluded that the statute in that case was incapable of a narrower construction because there is no logical way to read a specific intent element into the statute as it is currently written (E) recognizing that this courts construction of a statute becomes as much apart of the statute as the words of the statute itself and that change is a matter that addresses itself to the general assembly not this court

Ex Output:
(D)