TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: appropriate relief for such a violation is for the habeas court to "vacate the judgment of conviction and enter a new judgment from which an appeal can be taken." Id. Defendant argues that the Peak line of eases applies to his situation, and that his appellate rights should thus be reinstated. However, the Peak rule does not apply in defendant's ease, as the appeal at issue is not an appeal from a conviction. A Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to an appeal from a supervised release revocation hearing. Borrego v. United States, 975 F.Supp. 520, 523 (S.D.N.Y.1997). This follows logically from the fact that there is no guaranteed constitutional right to counsel at the supervised release revocation hearing itself. See United States v. Meeks, 25 F.3d 1117, 1123 (2d Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d
Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings (B) recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights (C) recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel (D) holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal (E) holding that most of the fundamental constitutional procedural protections that are normally applicable to a criminal prosecution are not required for supervisedrelease proceedings as a matter of constitutional law including a right to counsel

SOLUTION: (E)

PROBLEM: of death which does not meet these requirements is voidable by the donor (if he recovers) or his personal representative. Hulley v. Chedic, 22 Nev. 127,146, 36 P. 783 (1894). In other words, a gift in contemplation of death'is presumptively voidable by the personal representative of the deceased, and the presumption may be rebutted by the donee with clear and convincing evidence of the six elements listed above. Although Goldsworthy and Hulley are the only Nevada cases ever to have examined the gift causa mortis doctrine, and they have never been overruled, at least one Nevada case has suggested (in a different context) that the burden of proof may not be on the donee. North Arlington Medical Building, Inc. v. Sanchez Construction Company, 86 Nev. 515, 521, 471 P.2d 240, 244 (Nev.1970) (<HOLDING>). North Arlington is not really on point,
Holding statements: (A) holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable (B) holding that inter vivos gift to minor is presumptively effective under nrs 167040 (C) holding that the purpose of nrs 1760551 is to ensure that all time served is credited towards a defendants ultimate sentence (D) holding that belowguidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable (E) holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable

SOLUTION: (B)

PROBLEM: of the Civil Rights Act for guidance in interpreting the employment discrimination provisions of ORS 659A. See, e.g., Portland State Univ. Chapter of Am. Ass'n of Univ. Professors v. Portland State Univ., 352 Or. 697, 711, 291 P.3d 658, 666 (2012); Briede v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA Inc., No. 10-cv-649-HA, 2010 WL 4236929, at *3 (D.Or. Oct. 21, 2010); Conley v. City of Lincoln City, No. 02-cv-216-AS, 2004 WL 948427, at *13 (D.Or. Apr. 20, 2004) (collecting cases). Under Title VII, former employees can bring post-employment retaliation claims against their former employer if the action is related to or arises out of the employment relationship. Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir.1997); see also Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 345, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court finds that Hoy can
Holding statements: (A) holding that samesex sexual harassment claims are not actionable under title vii (B) holding that postemployment retaliation against a former employee for filing an equal employment complaint is actionable under title vii (C) holding an adverse employment action based on denial or revocation of a security clearance is not actionable under title vii (D) recognizing that a claim of hostile environment sex discrimination is actionable under title vii (E) holding that a plaintiff can prove illegal retaliation under 1981 in the same manner as he establishes retaliation under title vii

SOLUTION:
(B)