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.

set to work corroborating" his story, id., and found substantial corroborating evidence in methamphetamine ingredient purchase logs, police records, and "silent observer" tips. Id. at 385. Similarly, in Williams, not only was the informant named; officers "corroborated the information [the informant] provided through multiple sources, including [two cooperating witnesses], who correctly identified [defendant's] block." 544 F.3d at 690. Also, the investigating officer's "own observations outside [defendant's] residence substantiated [the informant's] statements." Id. Indeed, all our named informant cases share this common thread affidavits containing an informant's name plus other indicia of reliability. See, e.g., United States v. Kinison, 710 F.3d 678, 683 (6th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Combs, 369 F.3d 925, 938
Holding statements: (A) holding that informants identity should not be revealed where informant witnessed unrelated crime and reported it to the police who then only used the information to create probable cause for a search warrant (B) holding corroborating evidence sufficient that officer drove informant to defendants house saw defendant admit informant and saw informant come out with drugs and defendants voice was identified on audio tape of transaction (C) holding that dea agents may enter moments after or at the same time as the informant exited because they were immediately summoned by the informant (D) holding that a totality of circumstances standard was proper for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information from an informant (E) holding probable cause existed based on informants credibility as a named informant along with her decidedly intimate relationship with the suspect as revealed in a textmessage log provided by the informant emphasis added
Output:
(E)