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.

for a mitigating role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Section 3B1.2 “authorizes a four-level reduction in offense level if the defendant is deemed a ‘minimal’ participant in the criminal activity! ] [and] a two-level reduction if he is deemed a ‘minor’ participant....” United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772, 783 (6th Cir. 2012). The difference between “minimal” and “minor” is “not just semantic,” United States v. Lopez, 937 F.2d 716, 728 (2d Cir. 1991), and the standards are not interchangeable. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 5 (defining a “minor participant” as “a defendant ... who is less culpable than most other participants in the criminal activity, but whose role could not be described as minimal”) (emphasis added); United States v. Friedman, 998 F.2d 53, 60 (2d Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). Both Griffith and the Government focus their 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing this distinction (B) holding that there is no distinction in the right to jury trial between sentencing factors and elements (C) recognizing distinction between two types of waiver (D) holding that the district court improperly used the two different standards under ussg  3b12 interchangeably thus blurring the distinction between section 3b12a and b (E) recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel
(D)

Anderson claims that the trial court findings do not justify the decision to “increase” his child support on August 1, 1987. In other words, appellant construes the trial court’s 1987 decision as a modification downward to $250 followed by a modification upward to $400. This is a misconstruction of the trial court’s order. As the majority opinion indicates, the court did not make an upward modification. It does not follow, however, that the trial court could act without making findings on appellant’s ability to pay child support. Without findings on appellant’s ability to pay, or another indication that the trial court considered the facts as to appellant’s ability to pay, the law commands us to remand the case rather than to affirm. Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859, 864-65 (Minn.1986) (<HOLDING>). The dictates of Moylan should be applied. The 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court has jurisdiction to reconsider new trial order as long as case is pending (B) holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous (C) holding that a defendants attorney can waive the defendants sixth amendment confrontation right so long as the defendant does not dissent from his attorneys decision and so long as it can be said that the attorneys decision was a legitimate trial tactic or part of a prudent trial strategy (D) holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant (E) holding it improper to independently review the record to find support for a trial courts decision so long as it is unclear whether the trial court considered statutory factors
(E)

to renegotiate the terms of that document. See, e.g., Driscoll v. Schuttler, 697 F.Supp. 1195, 1203 (N.D.Ga.1988) (“Plaintiffs were not precluded from reading the releases; they understood that they were releasing their claims and exercised that option rather than gambling on the legal outcome of [their action].”). 9 . Plaintiffs allege that the money was spent in an effort to contain the damages caused by DuPont's product. 10 . The court notes that plaintiffs may not now seek to tender the money received in settlement. Georgia law requires that rescission be timely. Plaintiffs learned of the alleged fraud in 1994, nearly two years prior to commencing these actions. This delay is, as a matter of law, determinative. See, e.g., Orion Capital Partners, 223 Ga.App. 539, 478 S.E.2d at 385 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sevenmonth delay is too late as a matter of law to constitute an effective rescission or reasonable offer to rescind the agreement (B) holding offer of continued atwill employment did not constitute consideration for the arbitration agreement (C) holding that seventeenmonth delay in abandoning premises is not within a reasonable time as a matter of law (D) holding that a fiftyday delay to conduct an investigation was reasonable as a matter of law (E) holding that after learning the information justifying rescission an insurers four month delay in seeking it was unreasonable as a matter of law

(A)

