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.

Ex Input:
a result, he had assented to the Estate's producing the letters. Despite their lack of objection prior to producing the documents, the Opposing Parties contend the Estate "inadvertently" produced the documents and, further, that the stipulated protective order in this ease (the "Protective Order") requires KFI to return the documents. KFI argues the Estate voluntarily produced the documents. As detailed herein, this court finds the documents were not inadvertently disclosed. When parties stipulate to a protective order requiring the return of inadvertently produced documents, the agreement is enforceable if the proponent actually produced the document(s) inadvertently and otherwise complies with the terms of the order. See VLT Corp. v. Unitrode Corp., 194 F.R.D. 8, 11-12 (D.Mass.2000) (<HOLDING>). Absent an agreement, courts have applied
Holding statements: (A) holding that in agency adjudications in which the government has not claimed privilege written reports made at the time of an event must be produced when the credibility of the witness on matters discussed in the report is in question (B) holding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply fully against the government because the possibility of harm to a private party is often if not always grossly outweighed by the public interest in enforcement of congressionally mandated public policy (C) holding that at a resentencing the state must again prove the basis for an enhanced sentence even though such evidence was produced at the original sentencing (D) holding that where the district court decided two issues in the certified order but identified only the damages issue as the controlling question of law the court of appeals could nonetheless address the other issue (E) holding stipulated protective order mandated return of two documents inadvertently produced with approximately 25000 intentionally produced pages proponents established that the production of the materials at issue was not a considered or grossly negligent decision but the result of inattention ie inadvertence

Ex Output:
(E)

Ex Input:
IV, V, VI and XIV. See Answee, Docket # 8, Exh. A, pp. 13-14. In order to allow the state courts the opportunity to act on or correct the violations alleged, the Applicant must do more than just invoke the magic words "fair trial," or "due process," or make only cursory citation to the appropriate constitutional amendments. He must provide legal theory explaining how the admission of the statements or testimony violated these particular federal constitutional rights. See, e.g., Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7-8, 103 S.Ct. 276, 74 L.Ed.2d 3 (1982) (claim on direct appeal that jury instruction was reversible error did not fairly present due process challenge to instruction for habeas exhaustion purposes); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276-77, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) (<HOLDING>); see, also, Thomas v. Gibson, 218 F.3d 1213,
Holding statements: (A) holding in preaedpa case habeas applicant failed to fairly present federal claim to state court where despite presenting all necessary facts applicant failed to assert specific argument that he later tried to raise in federal court (B) holding that where defendant failed to raise defense of plaintiffs fraud in federal court defendant is barred from raising that issue in state court (C) holding that habeas petitioner scheduled to be executed in the state of virginia for capital murder could not raise claim of violation of his rights under the vienna convention on federal habeas review where he failed to preserve the claim by raising it in state court proceedings vienna convention does not trump subsequent federal statute requiring habeas petitioners who claim to be held in violation of treaties of the united states to develop factual bases for their claims in state court as a precondition of federal habeas review (D) holding applicants general state court claim was insufficient to exhaust his later more specific federal habeas claim (E) holding that a federal court may deny an unexhausted habeas petition on the merits when it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not raise even a colorable federal claim

Ex Output:
(A)

Ex Input:
noted at 152 N.C. App. 477, 2002 WL 1914015, at *7, 2002 N.C. App. LEXIS 2144, at *19-20 (Aug. 20, 2002) (unpublished opinion); Hart v. Pharaoh, 1961 OK 45, 359 P.2d 1074, 1079; Berg v. Wilson, 353 S.W.3d 166, 180 (Tex. App. 2011); Hidden Meadows Dev. Co. v. Mills, 590 P.2d 1244, 1248 (Utah 1979); Zweber v. Melar Ltd., 2004 WI App 185, 10, 276 Wis. 2d 156, 687 N.W.2d 818. But see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 405.32 (requiring cancellation of lis pendens notice if the filer failed to prove his claim at trial); Del. Code Ann. tit. 25, 1608 (granting discretion to cancel lis pendens if the filer is not likely to prevail); Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2731 (permitting courts to cancel lis pendens in certain circumstances during litigation); Sloane v. Davis, 433 So. 2d 374, 375 (La. Ct. App. 1983) (<HOLDING>); Inv'rs Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 169,
Holding statements: (A) holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal (B) holding that notice of administrative forfeiture sent to prisoner did not require actual notice to the property owner only notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action (C) holding that statute permitting cancellation of lis pendens at any time allowed cancellation during pendency of appeal emphasis omitted quoting nd cent code 280508 (D) holding that appeal did not prevent cancellation of lis pendens under statute reading in part that lis pendens shall be canceled w hen judgment is rendered in the action or proceeding against the party who filed the notice of the pendency thereof quoting la code civ proc ann art 3753 (E) holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding

Ex Output:
(D)