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]: (3) Dr. Hickman's observation that Seever's surgeries, residual pain, and physical limitations "have taxed his psychological coping abilities," ApltApp. at 372. But Dr. Hick man interpreted this information as presenting no more than a slight impairmentmeaning that he could still function wellas to understanding, remembering, and carrying out detailed instructions, and he declined to identify any other mental capabilities affected by Seever's depression. We will not fault the ALJ for failing to interpret Seever's symptoms and test results differently than Dr. Hickman. See Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1022 (10th Cir.1996) (observing that an ALJ may not substitute his lay opinion for a medical opinion); Hamilton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1500 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Nor are we convinced that the ALJ should have
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that this court may not reweigh evidence (B) recognizing this method (C) recognizing this presumption (D) recognizing this distinction (E) recognizing this rule
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: would be dangerous, futile, or allow the destruction of evidence. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 1421, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). In this case, the trial court granted Broussard's motion in limine prohibiting any mention of what Officer Kwiatkowski learned to support the search warrant. Given this limited record, we cannot know whether one of the exceptions applies. Further, even if there was a violation of the knock-and-announce rule, the United States Supreme Court has not yet decided whether or to what extent the exclusionary rule should be used as a remedy. See Wilson, 514 U.S. at 937 n. 4, 115 S.Ct. at 1919 n. 4; United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 72 n. 3, 118 S.Ct. 992, 997 n. 3, 140 L.Ed.2d 191 (1998). 3 . See, e.g., Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 814-15 (<HOLDING>). 4 . In 1991, Broussard pleaded guilty to a
Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant waived ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsels failure to emphasize certain evidence where amended motion for new trial did not assert claim of ineffectiveness on that ground and no argument related to the asserted ground was made at the motion for new trial hearing (B) holding that the combined effect of trial counsels errors should be considered (C) holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court (D) holding ineffectiveness should be considered at hearing dedicated to considering all facts circumstances and rationale behind counsels actions including opportunity to explain why no objection was made in trial court (E) holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully
[EX A]: (D)

[EX Q]: in the District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part and reverse in part. In his pro se complaint, Berge named Estherville Law Enforcement Center (ELEC) Investigator Greg VanLangen, ELEC Sergeant Brett Shatto, ELEC Chief Eric Milburn, and Emmet County Sheriff Larry Lamack. He alleged that VanLangen arrested him based on evidence "that was false and unconstitutionally acquired," that the evidence was derived from "a non-testimonial identification procedure," and that VanLangen filed a sworn affidavit which contained false information received from a confidential informant, which led to Berge's arrest, all in violation of Iowa state laws and the F -12 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 494-95 (8th Cir.
Holding statements: (A) holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under 1983 because it violates the fourth amendment (B) holding allegation that false affidavit was basis for arrest warrant is sufficient to state 1983 fourth amendment claim against affiant officer (C) holding that search warrant which was lacking sufficient description of premises and did not have affidavit attached was not fatally defective when read together with affidavit and when one of officers executing warrant was affiant (D) holding that it was clearly established for 1983 purposes that an arrest founded upon a recalled warrant violates the fourth amendment (E) recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a 1983 claim
[EX A]:
(B)