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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: to establish eligibility-triggering factors: Though Ia-beled as "sentencing factors," those factors are more appropriately considered as elements of a capital offense. This logic applies equally to the establishment of any sentencing factors necessary to expose a defendant to a higher maximum penalty in the noncapital context. As discussed supra, Fields's Confrontation Clause challenge relates only to evidence that the government introduced relevant to the jury's ultimate selection decision. The applicability of the Confrontation Clause to the establishment of eligibility-triggering factors is therefore not a question squarely presented by this case, and we decline to resolve it definitively. 19 .See McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 93, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376, 385, 106
Holding statements: (A) holding federal sentencing guidelines are subject to jury trial requirements of sixth amendment (B) holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing (C) holding that if a jury is to be provided the defendant at capital sentencing regardless of whether the sixth amendment requires it the jury must stand impartial and indifferent to the extent commanded by the sixth amendment (D) holding that there is no distinction in the right to jury trial between sentencing factors and elements (E) holding the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment

SOLUTION: holding federal sentencing guidelines are subject to jury trial requirements of sixth amendment

PROBLEM: County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Ban zure beyond its lawful duration, such theft violates the Fourth Amendment. See Nelson v. Streeter, 16 F.3d 145, 151 (7th Cir.1994). The remaining question is whether Colaprete's Fourth Amendment right against having his property converted following a search was clearly established when the alleged conversion occurred. The Seventh Circuit has held that the existence of this right is "[s]o obvious ... that we do not think the absence of case law can establish a defense of immunity." Id. We respectfully disagree. This court has never applied the Fourth Amendment in this manner, and Supreme Court precedent tilts slightly against the existence of any constitutional right against theft during the course of a search. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533(<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has held that the
Holding statements: (A) holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional (B) holding that doctrine does not violate due process (C) holding that theft by prison guards does not violate due process when postdeprivation remedy exists (D) holding that deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available and explaining that state tort actions are meaningful postdeprivation remedies (E) holding that a prison guards intentional destruction of a prisoners possessions did not give rise to a federal due process claim because state law provided an adequate postdeprivation tort remedy

SOLUTION: holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional

PROBLEM: order granting Appellee Elliott's motion for pretrial diversion and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings on Kenton Circuit Court Indictment No. 99-CR-641. All concur. 1 . KRS 533.250 .262. 2 . KRS 533.250(1). 3 . Class D Felony Pretrial Diversion Rules for the Kenton Circuit Court (hereinafter "Kenton Circuit Court Pretrial Diversion Program"), III(C). 4 . KRS 533.250. 5 . KRS 533.252. 6 . KRS 533.254. 7 . Hyatt v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 17 S.W.3d 121, 123 (2000). 8 . KRS 533.258(1). See also KRS 533.258(2) ("The defendant shall not be required to list this disposition on any application for employment, licensure, or otherwise unless required to do so by federal law."); KRS 533.258(3) ("Pretrial diversion records shall not be introduced as evidence 998) (<HOLDING>). 20 .See Thomas v. Commonwealth, Ky., 95
Holding statements: (A) holding that the appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal for his discovery violation allegations (B) holding that an appeal is properly dismissed as moot when an appellate court lacks power to provide an effective remedy for the appellant should it find in his favor (C) holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation (D) holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law (E) holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal

SOLUTION:
holding that an appeal is properly dismissed as moot when an appellate court lacks power to provide an effective remedy for the appellant should it find in his favor