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 Q]: fees, an award of reasonable fees is mandatory, as long as there is proof of reasonable fees ... and the plaintiff has been awarded damages." Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 462 (5th Cir.2002), citing Tex. Civ. Peac. & Rem. Code Ann. 38.001(8) (Vernon 2002). Accord Coffel v. Stryker Corp., 284 F.3d 625, 640 (5th Cir.2002) ("[t]he award of reasonable attorneys' fees is mandatory under 38.001 if the plaintiff prevails in his or her breach of contract claim and recovers damages"). The only discretion the Fifth Circuit permits is discretion to determine the amount of the attorney's fees award. See id. The availability of a section 38.001 award is not conditioned on a contractual provision for attorney's fees. See, e.g., Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 1 S.W.3d 91, 95 (Tex. 1999) (<HOLDING>); Golden v. Murphy, 611 S.W.2d 914, 915
Holding statements: (A) holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees (B) holding that prevailing party to contract dispute may recover attorneys fees either pursuant to contract or pursuant to statute (C) holding that prevailing party was entitled to attorneys fees under an option contract which had expired prior to litigation because the parties were litigating their performance under the terms of the contract (D) holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees (E) holding defendant waived request for fees pursuant to contract provision by only generally referring to fees in the answer and not citing the contract
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: and Defendants, therefore, terminated her employment without notice and an opportunity to be heard. A 1983 claim for deprivation of procedural due process has three elements: "(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest; (2) state action; and (3) constitutionally-inadequate process." Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir.2003). Thus, the Due Process Clause protects one's job only where one has a property right in that job. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff was a non-probationary employee in Alabama's classified service and, therefore, had a property interest in her position. See Ex parte Moulton, 116 So.3d 1119, 1133-35 (Ala.2013) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564,
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that plaintiff can bring action under due process clause of state constitution (B) holding that the due process clause protects only those liberty interests created by the state (C) holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor (D) holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law (E) holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: to the grand jury testimony and debriefing statements considered by the court, or that he had no opportunity to explain or rebut the information. Moreover, the sentencing guidelines permit the district court to estimate the drug quantity when there has been no seizure of drugs or when the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense. USSG 2D1.1, cmt. n. 12. Linton also challenges the district court's use of his co-defendants' presentence reports. As previously mentioned, the sentencing court may not rely on factual information from sources not disclosed to the defendant. Helton, 975 F.2d at 434. To do so would deprive the defendant of his opportunity to explain and rebut any claimed errors in the information. See also United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 860, 867 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). However, in this case, the district court did
Holding statements: (A) holding that where defendant did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute presentence report district court was free to adopt facts in psi without further inquiry (B) holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report (C) holding that a defendants objection to facts in the presentence report on the basis that they went beyond any prior jury verdict or guilty plea is sufficient to prevent those facts from being relied upon in sentencing (D) holding that sentencing court may not adopt facts from codefendants presentence report that was not disclosed to defendant (E) holding it insufficient when the sentencing judge only questioned defendant on certain aspects of the presentence report
[EX A]:
(D)