You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

warrant was for failure to abide by conditions of release. Defendant was arrested on that warrant; he was not arrested for failure to appear. Defendant argues that there is no provision in the rule for failure to return from a furlough and that failure to appear under Rule 5-604(B)(5) occurs only when a defendant fails to appear before a judicial officer at a scheduled hearing.. {24} The criminal Failure to Appear statute has just such a provision, and Defendant contends that the statute "connects" to the rule. Section 31-3-9 makes it a crime to "willfully fail[ ] to appear before any court or judicial officer" when that person is "released pending any proceeding related to the prosecution or appeal of a criminal offense." Id.; see Hicks, 2002-NMCA-038, 15, 132 N.M. 68, 43 P.3d 1078 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, no conviction has been sustained
Holding statements: (A) holding that the failure to appear in court pursuant to a court order can constitute direct criminal contempt (B) holding that the term timely should be read in conjunction with 45c2b that requires a party subject to a subpoena to object to a subpoena duces tecum within 14 days of service of the subpoena (C) holding that criminal faffing to appear requires not coming to court as directed by a notice subpoena summons or other legal process (D) holding a person who is not a member of the bar of any court may appear pro se but is not qualified to appear in the district court or in this court as counsel for others (E) holding that a denial of an order to quash a subpoena not directed to a movant was a final order if the movant had no further opportunity to challenge the subpoena
Output:
(C)