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.

[Q]: an alcohol concentration of .22. The Commissioner of Public Safety revoked Gergen's driving privileges, and the district court affirmed. ISSUES 1. Where a district court determines that a person arrested for driving while intoxicated did not make a good faith effort to contact an attorney, is the driver's right to counsel vindicated even though the telephone provided by the arresting officer is blocked from dialing 800-numbers? 2. Did the police officer violate Minn.Stat. 481.10? ANALYSIS I. A person arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) has a limited right to consult an attorney before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing, provided the consultation does not unreasonably delay the testing. Friedman v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828, 835 (Minn.1991) (<HOLDING>); see Minn. Const. art. I, 6 ("In all
Holding statements: (A) holding that there is no constitutional right to refuse chemical testing under the implied consent law (B) holding that the implied consent warning given to the defendant was not misleading or coercive because the validity of the implied consent notice is not contingent upon other administrative aspects of ocga 405671 (C) holding that officers not required to give implied consent warnings where statute did not apply (D) recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel (E) holding that right to counsel under implied consent statute is limited because of the evanescent nature of alcohol
[A]: (E)

[Q]: and seeking to dismiss the four new claims asserted against them in the amended complaint. Also on January 8, 2010, Wells Fargo filed a supplemental motion to dismiss [26], addressing the new claims against it and renewing its request that all counts be dismissed. II. Discussion The Court must determine whether: (1) Giscombe eliminated the deficiencies of his previous shotgun pleading, and (2) if so, whether the complaint should be dismissed for the other reasons asserted by ABN, Citimortgage, and Wells Fargo in their motions to dismiss. A. Legal Standard The sufficiency of Giscombe's amended complaint depends on whether it is a shotgun pleading; if so, it will fall short of the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284-85 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The defining characteristic of a shotgun
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the liberal notice and simplified pleading principles underlying the federal rules of civil procedure (B) holding that under leatherman a federal court may not apply a pleading requirement more stringent than that provided for in the federal rules of civil procedure even in 1983 litigation (C) holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted (D) holding that the fact that federal rule of civil procedure 9b requires a heightened pleading standard for some claims but not for a section 1983 claim against a municipality means that the rules do not require a heightened pleading standard for such a claim (E) holding that a shotgun pleading is in no sense the short and plain statement of a claim required by rule 8 of the federal rules of civil procedure
[A]: (E)

[Q]: agree that Mikulin failed to demonstrate that he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications under Gov.Bar R. 1(11) to be admitted to the bar. Specifically, we conclude that his disregard of traffic laws and his neglect of his financial responsibilities present sufficient grounds for disapproving his application. See Gov.Bar R. I(ll)(D)(3)(f) and (k); see also In re Application of Kapel, 72 Ohio St.3d 532, 651 N.E.2d 955 (1995) (finding that the applicant's disorderly conduct conviction and repeated traffic violations, including speeding, demonstrated that the applicant lacked the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law but permitting the applicant to reapply); In re Application of Acton, 121 Ohio St.3d 154, 2009-Ohio-499, 902 N.E.2d 966, 26 (<HOLDING>). { 10} We therefore accept the board's
Holding statements: (A) holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency (B) holding that ability of applicants family to remain unharmed cuts against finding of wellfounded fear (C) holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lie largely within the discretion of the ij (D) holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability (E) recognizing that an applicants neglect of his or her own financial responsibilities bodes ill for the applicants ability to oversee the interests of clients with the diligence and integrity required of the profession
[A]:
(E)