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: efforts to persuade an Immigration Judge to exercise her discretion to grant him a deportation waiver the removal of that discretion would constitute a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Furthermore, given that parole eligibility is "considered an integral part of any sentence," Shepard, 556 F.2d at 654; see also Warden, 417 U.S. at 658, 94 S.Ct. at 2535-36, I think that the availability and likelihood of a deportation waiver should also be so considered. In explaining the basis for its con- elusion that parole eligibility or gain time should be considered part of 86, 68 L.Ed. 549 (1924) ("It is well settled that deportation, while it may be burdensome and severe for the alien, is not a punishment."); Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591, 33 S.Ct. 607, 608, 57 L.Ed. 978 (1913) (<HOLDING>) (citing Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149
Holding statements: (A) holding that the amount of sanctions is appropriate only when it is the minimum that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior (B) holding that the determination that an alien is an undesirable person is not a conviction of crime nor is the deportation a punishment it is simply a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want (C) holding that it is not (D) holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime (E) holding that habeas review is for any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation

A: (B)
****
Q: Inc., 575 F.2d 62, 66 (3d Cir.1978); Novelty Textile Mills v. Joan Fabrics Corp., 558 F.2d 1090, 1093 n. 3 (2d Cir.1977). 7 .The rationale for this rule, as Judge Aldrich stated, is that "to permit copyrighting [in that case] would mean that a party or parties, by copyrighting a mere handful of forms [of expression], could exhaust all possibilities of future use of the substance ... [and thus] the subject matter would be appropriated by permitting the copyrighting of its expression. We cannot recognize copyright as a game of chess in which the public can be checkmated." Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675, 678-79 (1st Cir.1967). 8 . As an example of where dissection was improperly used, see Apple Barrel Productions Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). 9 .For example, the court may find that the
Holding statements: (A) holding that consideration supports the agreement as a whole (B) holding that the district court erred when it failed to consider the presumption of irreparable harm (C) holding district court erroneously failed to consider copyrighted show as a whole (D) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice (E) holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole

A: (C)
****
Q: applicability of the Edwards rule to apply to interrogative conduct by a non-law enforcement commander; see United States v. Brabant, 29 M.J. 259, 263 (C.M.A.1989) (concluding that Sergeant Brabant's commanding officer's order that Sgt Brabant attend a meeting following his invocation of counsel created the "functional equivalent of a 'reinitiation of interrogation'"); see also United States v. Mitchell, 51 M.J. 234, 237 (C.A.A.F.1999) (extending applicability of Edwards to question, "Was it worth it" by Petty Officer Mitchell's leading chief petty officer who was there as part of official command brig visit). The CMA has also created an overseas exception to the Edwards rule. United States v. Vidal, 23 M.J. 319 (C.M.A.1987); see United States v. Coleman, 26 M.J. 451, 453 (C.M.A.1988) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Upon remand, the U.S. Army Court of
Holding statements: (A) holding that an ambiguous mention of an attorney is not a request for counsel (B) holding suspect must unambiguously request counsel before applying rule established in edwards that police questioning must cease once suspect requests counsel during interview (C) holding that in determining whether there exists a valid waiver of the right to counsel in the criminal setting the court may consider a defendants lack of good faith in working with appointed counsel including an unreasonable refusal to cooperate with counsel or an unreasonable request for substitution of appointed counsel and the timeliness of defendants request for new counsel particularly when a defendant makes an untimely request for new counsel under circumstances which are likely to result in a continuance (D) holding that a suspect must unambiguously request counsel (E) holding that a request for counsel made to foreign authorities is insufficient to trigger edwards rule even if army cid agents were aware of specialist colemans prior request for counsel made to german police

A:
(E)
****