TASK DEFINITION: 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: interest" at issue here because "[pjursuant to the Treaty of 1866 and the Thirteenth Amendment, the Cherokee Nation has no authority to treat its Freedmen citizens as anything less than full equals." Freedmen's Opp'n to Crittenden's Mot. Dismiss [Dkt. # 123] at 14. By raising this argument to eviscerate the Nation's claim of prejudice, the Freedmen are asking the Court to reach the merits of their claims against the Nation. This the Court cannot do. Indeed, the Tenth Circuit has squarely rejected a similar argum pelling claim of sovereign immunity" and finds that the Nation's interests would be prejudiced if the case were to proceed in its absence. Republic of Philippines, 553 U.S. at 869, 128 S.Ct. 2180; see also Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Norton, 248 F.3d 993, 1001 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Davis, 192 F.3d at 960) (internal
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that tribal sovereign immunity extends to agencies and subdivisions of the tribe (B) recognizing a strong presumption favoring arbitrability (C) holding that there is a strong policy favoring dismissal for nonjoinder due to tribal sovereign immunity but that rule 19b factors must still be considered (D) holding that state did not have jurisdiction over tribe where tribe paid into workers compensation program but had not waived sovereign immunity (E) recognizing the strong policy favoring dismissal when a court cannot join a tribe because of sovereign immunity

SOLUTION: (E)

PROBLEM: to use the latter route to circumvent Congress's apparent intent in enacting the AEDPA to bar all review of such decisions. Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1046 (D.C.Cir.1998). In 1997, the Ninth Circuit held that the new restrictions on successive petitions do not prevent a petitioner from bringing a 2241 claim after he has already brought a 2255 claim. See United States v. Lorentsen, 106 F.3d 278 (9th Cir.1997). Furthermore, in 1998, the Second Circuit held that a 2255 petition that followed a 2241 petition was not barred. See Corrao v. United States, 152 F.3d 188, 191 (2d Cir.1998), citing Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 474 (2d Cir.1 the execution of a sentence are properly raised in a 2241 petition"); United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 489 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Corrao, 152 F.3d at 191 ("a motion under
Holding statements: (A) holding that subject matter jurisdiction under 2241 is present in the custodial court when the petition challenges the manner location or condition of a sentences execution (B) holding that a petition under 2241 attacks the execution of a sen tence while a 2255 petition attacks the validity of a judgment and sentence (C) holding that an attack on the computation and execution of a sentence must come in the form of a 2241 petition (D) holding that 2255 is unavailable to attack execution of sentence (E) holding that it is well settled in this jurisdiction and elsewhere that 2255 will lie only to attack the imposition of a sentence and that an attack on the execution thereof may be accomplished only by way of habeas corpus in the district of confinement

SOLUTION: (C)

PROBLEM: refer to the defendant's failure to testify. See State v. Clark, 170 W.Va. 224, 292 S.E.2d 643 (1982); State v. McClure, 163 W.Va. 33, 253 S.E.2d 555 (1979); State v. Simon, 132 W.Va. 322, 52 S.E.2d 725 (1949). However, those cases involved isolated remarks that certain evidence was uneontra-dieted, unlike the argument here which repeatedly emphasized the absence of refutation by the defense. Further, the prosecutor's statements that no one had denied that appellant sold the drugs amounted to an impermissible comment on the appellant's failure to testify, since appellant was the only one who could have denied it. 172 W.Va. at 134, 304 S.E.2d at 39; see also U.S. v. Cotnam, 88 F.3d 487, 497 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, Cotnam v. U.S., 519 U.S. 942, 117 S.Ct. 326, 136 L.Ed.2d 240 (<HOLDING>); Mannarino v. State, 869 So.2d 650
Holding statements: (A) holding the states comment that nobody testified he wasnt the guy was an impermissible comment on appellants right to remain silent in a case in which the only individual who could have contradicted the states evidence was the appellant (B) holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify (C) holding that a prosecutor may comment on the absence of evidence so long as there is sufficient evidence to support the prosecutors version of events (D) holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify (E) holding that prosecutors comment that regarding uncontradieted undenied unrebutted or undisputed evidence is considered violative of fifth amendment rights if only person who could have contradicted denied rebutted or disputed the evidence was the defendant himself

SOLUTION:
(E)