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: June 1993 was being denied. Katz asserts that he never received the letter and, therefore, until March 27, 1995, when he received the notice of the denial of coverage, Colonial had led him to believe that his policy covered registered nursing care provided at a general hospital. As the dispute as to whether Katz actually received the letter cannot be resolved at this juncture, I now consider whether, if he did not receive the letter, Colonial should be estopped from denying coverage for the October/November private nursing care. In order to prevail under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, Katz must show (1) a material representation, (2) reasonable reliance upon that representation, and (3) damage resulting from that representation. Lee v. Burkhart, 991 F.2d 1004, 1009 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Katz asserts that Colonial's failure to
Holding statements: (A) recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel (B) recognizing cause of action (C) holding that ejven if there were no express preemption under erisa 514a of the cause of action in that case it would be preempted because it conflicted directly with an erisa cause of action (D) recognizing the cause of action (E) recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: clause. We conclude that reckless battery is a violent crime under the force clause, an issue not addressed by the Holloway opinion. See United States v. Booker, 644 F.3d 12, 20 & n.10 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1538 (2012). We further note that the Holloway court's conclusion with respect to reckless battery accorded with then-binding instruction from the United States Supreme Court that the residual clause is limited to an offense that "typically involve[s] purposeful, 'violent,' and 'aggressive' conduct." United States v. Holloway, supra at 260, quoting Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 144-145 (2008). Last year, however, the Supreme Court retreated from this characterization of the residual clause. Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267, 2270, 2277 (2011) (<HOLDING>). The Court iterated that "[t]he phrase
Holding statements: (A) holding that under indiana law fleeing an officer in a vehicle constitutes a violent felony under begay because the flight must be done knowingly or intentionally (B) holding massachusetts conviction for larceny from the person constitutes violent felony under the residual clause of the acca (C) holding that burglary is violent felony (D) holding that vehicular flight from police officer after order to stop is violent felony under residual clause (E) holding that ohios thirddegree burglary statute constituted a violent felony under the residual clause of the armed career criminal act
Example Output: (D)

Example Input: anything but voluntary. The evidence is therefore legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's implicit rejection of Gokey's involuntary act or conduct defense. Enhancement Allegations In his final two points of error, Gokey asserts the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court's finding of true to the enhancement allegations because there is a material variance between the allegations and the proof. The State agrees the enhancement allegations recite a conviction in Chesterfield County, Virginia and the proof establishes a conviction in the Circuit Court in the City of Colonial Heights, Virginia. We must therefore decide whether variance between what was alleged and what was proved is material. See Human v. State, 749 S.W.2d 832, 836 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (<HOLDING>). Prior convictions alleged for enhancement are
Holding statements: (A) holding variance between enhancement allegation and proof renders evidence legally insufficient only if variance is material (B) holding evidence legally insufficient (C) holding variance in style of case pled for enhancement not material where defendant not surprised or misled to his prejudice (D) holding that multiple conspiracies instruction is required where there is possibility of prejudicial variance between indictment and trial proof and noting that such an instruction is designed precisely to cure the problem of kotteakos spillover and would not cure other prejudicial variance problems (E) recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof
Example Output:
(A)