Detailed Instructions: 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.
Problem:authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, asserting the Supreme Court established a new rule made retroactive when it held in Johnson v. United States that the "residual clause" of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutional. 576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). The government joins his motion. We grant Woods authorization to file a successive 2255 petition. In October 2002, a jury convicted Woods of being a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition, both in violation of 18 U.S.C 922(g)(1), and a felon in possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(k). While Woods's conviction under 922(g)(1) would typically carry a maximum sentence of ten years, Woods had (<HOLDING>); Pakala v. United States, 804 F.3d 139, 140
Holding statements: (A) holding johnson announced a new substantive rule and prior supreme court holdings make it retroactive (B) holding the same under blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004 (C) holding that after blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004 statutory maximum is the maximum that this particular defendant can face in light of his criminal history and the facts found by a jury or admitted by the defendant (D) holding that the safety valve provision of 18 usc 3553f is not unconstitutional under apprendi 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 or blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004 (E) holding supreme court made new substantive rules retroactive in schriro v summerlin 542 us 348 351 124 sct 2519 159 led2d 442 2004 but finding johnson did not announce a new substantive rule under summerlin
Solution:
(E)