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.

Example Input: but rather whether there is at least one common question that will generate a common answer "apt to drive the resolution of the litigation." Wal-Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 1225 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Wang, 737 F.3d at 544 ("[s]o long as there is even a single common question, a would-be class can satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2)."). Here, the question of whether using the name-only matching logic assures maximum accuracy is such a question. See Acosta v. Trans Union LLC, 243 F.R.D. 377, 384 (C.D.Cal.2007) (common question of whether defendants maintained reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy satisfied commonality prerequisite); Clark v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2001 WL 1946329, at *2 (D.S.C. March 19, 2001) (<HOLDING>). Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied for the FCRA
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report (B) holding that certain information on police blotter show up and arrest sheets and front page of offense report are public information (C) holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a violation of the fcra based on extraneous information where it was alleged that the document included broad language regarding disclosure of the information the accuracy of the information the consequences of providing a false statement and the effect of a photocopy (D) holding that question of what reasonable procedures if any have been set up by the defendants to assure maximum accuracy of the information contained in the consumer report including information regarding or related to bankruptcy among other questions satisfied the commonality requirement of rule 23a2 (E) holding that the right of access to government information or sources of information within the governments control is not mandated by the first or fourteenth amendments
Example Output: (D)

Example Input: Cordova's final policymaking authority concerning the termination or transfer of employees. For the aforesaid reasons, I conclude summary judgment should enter against Singer on the 1981 and 1983 claims against the School District. B. Liability of Cordova under 1981. I have concluded the School District is not liable to Singer under 1981. I consider Defendants' additional argument concerning the 1981 claim since it remains of relevance to Singer's 1981 claim against Cor-dova. Defendants argue 1981 does not apply to religious discrimination and the claim should be dismissed insofar as it is based on such discrimination. See Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat'l Lab., 992 F.2d 1033, 1036 n. 3 (10th Cir.1993); Manzanares v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 593 F.2d 968, 971 (10th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Singer cites the holding in Shaare Tefila
Holding statements: (A) holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination (B) holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex (C) holding that a violation of 1981 requires purposeful race discrimination (D) holding that racial discrimination is not a personal injury tort (E) holding 1981 is directed to racial discrimination although not necessarily limited to the technical or restrictive meaning of race but does not apply to sex or religious discrimination
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: 7261. The Court reviews the Secretary's interpretation of law de novo. See Hatch, supra. After reviewing the Secretary's analysis of the rating schedule with regard to tinnitus, the Court concludes that he failed to take account of a basic canon of construction, specifically, to look to the plain text of the regulation. "The basic principles that apply to construing statutes apply equally to construing regulations. 'The starting point in interpreting a statute is its language.' " Otero-Castro, supra (quoting Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Shalala, 508 U.S. 402, 409, 113 S.Ct. 2151, 124 L.Ed.2d 368 (1993)) (internal citations omitted). Here, the Secretary's interpre tation cannot stand because it conflicts with the plain meaning of the regulation. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet.App 202, 207 (1995) (<HOLDING>) (citing Combee v. Principi, 4 Vet.App 78, 91
Holding statements: (A) holding that bias interpretation of immigration law is entitled to deference except where the interpretation is clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute (B) holding that a secretarys interpretation of a departments regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation (C) holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation (D) holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation (E) holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference
Example Output:
(E)