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.

Q: the sufficiency of the evidence," we "must affirm the verdict 'if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the evidence that the elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the verdict.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Myers, 104 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1218, 117 S.Ct. 1709, 137 L.Ed.2d 834 (1997)). hi. A. The principal issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in admitting the text messages obtained from Govan's cell phone. First, Govan argues that the district court erred by applying the good-faith exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Govan argues that for the good-faith
Holding statements: (A) holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required (B) holding that because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search (C) holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant (D) holding that evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not barred by the exclusionary rule (E) holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid

A: (D)
****
Q: of the property. See C.R.E. 602; C.R.E. 701. However, there is no evidence in the record which establishes that Pomeranz ever paid a bill relating to the maintenance of the property or that he was personally responsible for any aspect of the maintenance because McDonald's had been responsible for the payments for the past fifteen years. Because no adequate evidentiary foundation was laid for Pomeranz's estimation of maintenance expenses on the property, it is impossible, absent pure speculation, to ascertain from the record how Pomeranz obtained the $4,800 estimation. The trial court's factual findings relating to future maintenance expenses are not sustained by either competent or adequate evidence and are therefore clearly erroneous. See Anderson, 170 Colo. at 13, 458 P.2d at 758 (<HOLDING>). The evidence presented by the petitioners on
Holding statements: (A) holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact (B) holding that a reviewing court will only presume that the trial court made implicit factual findings when such findings were necessary to its ultimate conclusion (C) holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings (D) holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence (E) holding that where the original drug quantity determination is not specific enough for the district court to determine whether it has the authority to reduce a defendants sentence under 3582c2 that court may make new findings of fact that are supported by the record and are not inconsistent with the findings made in the original sentencing proceedings

A: (D)
****
Q: inmates and their attorneys. See id. 2. {12} Although inmates have a diminished expectation of privacy in prison, they are nonetheless protected by the provisions of the Abuse of Privacy Act. See generally Coyazo, 1997-NMCA-029, 8-16, 123 N.M. 200, 936 P.2d 882. Thus, to the extent that the district court below relied on Defendant's 8, 189 (Ct.App.1972) (stating that this Court will affirm if the district court is right for any reason, as long as the opposing party had an opportunity to respond). {14} In determining whether Defendant's telephone calls were recorded in violation of the Abuse of Privacy Act, the dispositive question in the present case is whether Defendant consented to the recording. See 30-12-l(E)(3); see also Coyazo, 1997-NMCA-029, 9, 123 N.M. 200, 936 P.2d 882 (<HOLDING>). In Coyazo, our Court recognized that an
Holding statements: (A) recognizing exception (B) recognizing a childabuse exception to marital communications privilege (C) recognizing that a partys prior consent to the recording or monitoring of communications constitutes an exception to the abuse of privacy act (D) recognizing the prior conviction exception of almendareztorres (E) recognizing such an exception

A:
(C)
****