instruction:
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.
question:
constitutionally obstruct despite the provision of counsel. Indeed, in Benjamin v. Fraser, when considering impediments to pre-trial detainees' ability to visit with counsel, we recognized that a state could not " 'unjustifiably obstruct the availability of professional representation or other aspects of the right of access to the courts.' " Benjamin 264 F.3d at 187, 188 (emphasis added) (quoting Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 419, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974) and determining that "both the due process right of access to the courts and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel are implicated," and that there was no error in measures ordered to remedy undue delays associated with attorney visits). See also Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477, 480-81, 83 S.Ct. 768, 9 L.Ed.2d 892 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Nor can I agree with the majority's holding
Holding statements: (A) holding same for writ of error coram nobis (B) holding that rule 4as time limits govern an appeal from a district court order granting or denying a petition for a writ of error coram nobis (C) holding that the state could not deny an indigent criminal appellant a transcript to appeal pro se from the denial of a writ of error coram nobis or permit that the appellant at the will of the public defender be entirely cut off from any appeal at all (D) holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner (E) holding that in the absence of a valid excuse for delay a coram nobis petition is subject to denial
answer:
(C)

question:
showing he was denied a constitutional right. Because Weaver's application for a COA raises several claims, it is impossible to glean from the present record which issue(s) the district court thought worthy of appeal. Cf. Murray, 145 F.3d at 1250-51 (determining that while court of appeals could not decide issue not specified in COA, it could "construe the issue specification in light of the pleadings and other parts of the record"). Therefore we must remand the record for the district court to specify the issue or issues for appeal. See Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 46 (5th Cir.1997); Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 105 F.3d 1063, 1076 (6th Cir.1997); Hunter v. United States, 101 F.3d 1565, 1584 (11th Cir.1996); but cf. Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). It is so
Holding statements: (A) holding remand for specification of issues unnecessary where clear from briefing appellant had not made substantial showing he was denied any constitutional right (B) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right (C) holding that appellant had waived any objection to an instruction that he had himself introduced and which was amended by the state without objection from appellant (D) holding that application of section 9711h as amended did not deprive appellant of any constitutional right (E) holding that where appellant acknowledged timely receiving notice by regular mail appellant appeared and fully participated at the trial and appellant made no claim that he was harmed in any way appellee had fulfilled the primary purposes of texrcivp 21a
answer:
(A)

question:
or an agent or employee of the employer for the death of or a work-related injury sustained by the employee." Tex. Lab. Code Ann. 408.001(a) (West 2015). The entity with the "right to control" the employee at the time of an accident is the "employer" for workers' compensation purposes. See Archem v. Austin Indus., Inc., 804 S,W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ). The concept of joint control shared by dual or co-employers has been found applicable in workers' compensation insurance cases. See Port Elevator-Brownsville v. Casados, 358 S.W.3d 238, 242 (Tex.2012) (concluding employee of staffing company was covered by both temporary employer's and staffing company's workers' compensation insurance); Wingfoot Enters. v. Alvarado, 111 S.W.3d 134, 143 (Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Aztec Rig Equip., Inc., 921 S.W.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that exclusiveremedy provision applied to both temporary staffing company and client company (B) holding owner of company qualified as an employer due to inter alia his authority to hire and fire employees and overall financial control of company (C) holding that trial court erred in granting ex parte temporary injunction prohibiting marketing activities of defendant company because there had been no showing that plaintiff company would likely suffer irreparable harm or lacked an adequate remedy at law (D) holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company (E) holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen
answer:
(A)