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.

563 U.S. 421, 438, 131 S.Ct. 1866, 179 L.Ed.2d 843 (2011). Nonetheless, the District Court and the Plan have cited to the language in the Summary Plan Description ("SPD") as the language of the Plan. We, too, adopt this approach. See US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U.S. 88, 133 S.Ct. 1537, 1543 n.1, 185 L.Ed.2d 654 (2013) ("Because everyone in this case has treated the language from the summary description as though it came from the plan, we do so as well."). Moreover, insofar as McLaughlin and J.J.M. now contend that the SPD was not "designated a plan document" and so cannot control here, McLaughlin Reply Br. 1, we deem this argument forfeited because it is raised solely in the reply brief. See Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). 4 . We have considered McLaughlin's and
Holding statements: (A) holding an argument not raised in opening brief is waived (B) holding that a party waives an argument that it raises in the background section of its brief but not in the argument section (C) holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief (D) holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived (E) holding that an argument is not preserved unless a party raises it in its opening brief
(E)

that she disapproved of what she reasonably believed to be unlawful retaliation. B. Form and Context To the extent that Thomas' conduct was expressive, the message was communicated to her immediate supervisor, Miller, and other court employees. She did not, however, attempt to inform the general public about the allegedly retaliatory practices. That Thomas chose to convey her views privately rather than publicly is not determinative of whether her expression is entitled to protection. See Givhan v. W. Line Consol. Sch. Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 415-16, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979). Because content is the most important factor, we have concluded that speech about a matter of public concern may be protected even when made in a private context. See, e.g., Ceballos, 361 F.3d at 1174 (<HOLDING>); Ulrich, 308 F.3d at 979 ("[T]he public
Holding statements: (A) holding that when protected speech is inextricable from unprotected speech the court will treat the entire message as protected (B) holding that a written offer accepted by parol may constitute a sufficient memorandum of the contract provided the person making the offer is the party to be charged (C) holding that a memorandum given to the employees supervisors was protected speech when the memorandum alleged criminal wrongdo ing (D) holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected (E) holding the separate document rule violated when the alleged judgment was included with the memorandum and order of the court
(C)

of the composite tape is demonstrated by a July 11, 1994 letter written by Attorney Collins, who represented the City at the Civil Service Commission hearing, to Attorney Li-chten, Cignetti's counsel at the hearing. In that letter, Attorney Collins states that the tape was "made as part of the investigation." The defendants' have, moved to strike the letter. The motion is denied as moot. Although the letter itself has little or no evidentiary value, the defendants, as discussed above, have not established that they were engaging in prosecutorial functions when they prepared the tape. 8 . Several other Courts of Appeals have adopted similar exceptions to the broad immunity recognized in Briscoe v. LaHue. See Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 11 (<HOLDING>); see also Palma v. Atlantic County, 53
Holding statements: (A) holding that disputed issues of fact as to whether officer who allegedly gave false testimony before a grand jury could be considered a complaining witness prevented summary judgment (B) recognizing that absolute immunity is immunity from charges of either constitutional or statutory violations (C) holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a 1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony (D) holding that absolute immunity does not extend to a complaining witness who initiated a baseless prosecution by giving false testimony at either a grand jury proceeding or preliminary hearing (E) holding that a prosecutor accused of knowingly presenting false testimony at trial is protected by absolute immunity
(D)