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]: to the poisonous tree") (quoting Olivares-Rangel, 458 F.3d at 1117). To be able to object to the police conducting an illicit protective sweep of the Gonzalez residence, Defendant would have to have some basis to claim that the sweep violated his rights. He does not. We conclude, therefore, that his subsequent detention was lawful. 2. Defendant's detention occurred after the police had conducted the sweep of Gonzalez's residence, and only an individual with a legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence could object to the sweep. After entering the garage, officers acted reasonably in detaining Defendant when they caught him red handed with large quantities of marijuana, cuttings tools, and scales in plain sight. See United States v. Turner, 553 F.3d 1337, 1344 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). We reject any contention that the officers
Holding statements: (A) holding that the standard of probable cause applies to all arrests without the need to balance the interests and circumstances involved in particular situations thus an officer may without violating the fourth amendment arrest an offender if probable cause exists to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence (B) holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it (C) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment (D) holding a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the fourth amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed (E) holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed
[EX A]: (D)

[EX Q]: 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
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: The conduct charged in Counts Eight and Ten would probably also be admissible on the other counts to show the scope of the scheme. Theriault's conclusory assertion that a jury could "infer criminal conduct" from one group of counts to the other falls far short of showing the kind of pervasive prejudice needed to sever counts due to evidentiary spillover. To prevail on a motion to sever based on a need to testify (apparently Count Eight, the false loan application), a defendant must make "a convincing showing that he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and strong need to refrain from testifying on the other." Richardson, 515 F.3d at 81 (quoting United States v. Alosa, 14 F.3d 693, 695 (1st Cir.1994)); see also United States v. Jordan, 112 F.3d 14, 16 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) (quoting United States v. Gray, 958 F.2d 9, 14
Holding statements: (A) holding that under the sliding scale approach a petitioner had made a sufficiently strong showing of likely success on the merits where he presented a case which raises serious legal questions or has a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success (B) holding that success on a motion to sever requires a strong showing of prejudice (C) recognizing that the burden of persuasion for a showing of prejudice was on the defendant (D) holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice (E) holding that injunctive relief may be warranted where there is a particularly strong likelihood of success on the merits even if there is a relatively slight showing of irreparable injury
[EX A]:
(B)