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: residence. Upon arrival, the police recovered shell casings from a .40 caliber weapon. Robles told the police that he was not home when the shots were fired, and he denied-owning a .40 caliber weapon. Despite Robles' denials, Detective Cabrera recovered a .40 caliber pistol that was registered to Robles. The police did not follow up with Robles or the witnesses. Once again, Robles was not charged. In August 2010, Johnson amended his pending PCRA petition to allege that the Commonwealth violated Brady by withholding the above-described police reports. The PCRA court dismissed Johnson's amended petition as untimely. On appeal, however, this Court reversed and remanded for a merits review of Johnson's Brady claim. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 619 Pa. 386, 64 A.3d 621 (2013) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). After remand, the PCRA court granted
Holding statements: (A) holding that the oneyear bar contained in 2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar (B) holding that coleman could use certain information to bring a new and separate suit even though that information was discovered subsequent to a violation of the courts protective order (C) holding that attorney abandonment constitutes an extraordinarycircumstance that allows a federal court to disregard the state procedural bar to hearing a habeas petition (D) holding that infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief (E) holding that the information discovered during the federal habeas proceedings constitutes newly discovered facts for pur poses of the b1ii exception to the pcras jurisdictional time bar

SOLUTION: (E)

PROBLEM: of limitations have been held as not capable of waiver or subject to an estoppel, whether pled or not.") (internal quotation marks omitted). The dissenting opinion cites several re-, cent Supreme Court decisions in support of the proposition that the statute of limitations set forth at section 2501 is not jurisdictional, including Day v. McDonough, U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 164 L.Ed.2d 376 (2006); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), Eberhart v. United States, U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 403, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam), Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (2004), and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004). None of the foregoing decisions address section 2501. Day, 126 S.Ct. at 1681 (<HOLDING>); Arbaugh, 126 S.Ct. at 1245 (addressing
Holding statements: (A) holding that the oneyear statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 is not jurisdictional (B) holding that the oneyear statute of limitations under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act aedpa begins to run on the date a prisoner dismisses his direct appeal because his conviction is then final (C) holding that aedpas oneyear period of limitations does not support a delay of filing of habeas petition by capital defendant (D) holding that in a designation of a foreign terrorist organization under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 aedpa the governments use of classified information without permitting the organization to view the information did not violate the organizations due process rights (E) holding that neither the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 nor the illegal immigration reform act of 1996 repealed the district courts jurisdiction to review aliens habeas petitions

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: policy which required all patrons to order a drink if they wished to remain in the club); Taylor v. Bar MT LLC, Civ. A. No. H-09-481, 2009 WL 5195982 (S.D.Tex. Dec.22, 2009) (discussing only a 42 U.S.C. 2000a claim, not the Plaintiff's other 42 U.S.C. 1981 claim, arising from allegations that the dress code at Bar MT was a pretext for racial discrimination); Mazloum v. District of Columbia Police Dep't, 522 F.Supp.2d 24 (D.D.C.2007); 42 U.S.C. 1981 (discussing the "full and equal benefit" clause of 42 U.S.C. 1981 (rather the "make and enforce contracts" clause), which does not necessarily implicate contractual rights). 6 . Excepting the Sixth Circuit decision in Watson v. Fraternal Order of Eagles, supra. 7 . See also Perry v. Burger King 924 F.Supp. 548, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. City of Boston, 738 F.Supp. 604
Holding statements: (A) holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 usc 1981 (B) holding in a title vii case but relying on 1981 cases that the issue is not the plaintiffs physical characteristics but whether he was discriminated against by other africanamericans because he was born black (C) holding that plaintiff stated a valid liberty interest claim where he contended that based on industry custom he was foreclosed from working at any savings and loan in the state where he had been denied a de facto license (D) holding that a prisoner stated a valid equal protection claim when he alleged he was denied a work assignment because of his sexual orientation (E) holding that the plaintiff had stated a claim under 42 usc 1981 when he alleged that he was prohibited from using the restroom at a burger king after ordering and eating a meal because he was black

SOLUTION:
(E)