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]: ones in the present case, are capable of sustaining “direct physical loss or damage.” The definition of “physical,” as provided in the Oxford English Dictionary, is “[o]f or relating to natural phenomena perceived through the senses (as opposed to the mind); of or relating to matter or the material world; natural; tangible, conCrete.” Oxford English Dictionary, Ohio courts have recognized that “[m]oney deposited in a fund is intangible property,” Walther v. Central Trust Co., N.A., 70 Ohio App.3d 26, 32, 590 N.E.2d 375 (Ohio Ct.App.1990), and that “[i]ntangible personal property, by its very nature, is not capable of being physically possessed.” Denezza v. Denezza, 1996 WL 111812, *2, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 935, at *5 (Ct.App. Mar. 15, 1996) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); see also Falck v. United States, 2005 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing limited partnership interest as intangible personal property (B) recognizing that property not subject to physical seizure such as mutual fund shares are intangible property (C) recognizing that the government may seek a personal judgment specific property or substitute property (D) holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property (E) recognizing that partnership property is a type of ownership
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: omitted). Even if we were to do so, it would not change the outcome, since we see no error in the district court’s ruling regardless of whether the robbery and drug conspiracy were related. 3 . This course of action is permissible, though "we have repeatedly mentioned 'our strong preference for James proceedings.' ” United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267, 1273 (10th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Owens, 70 F.3d 1118, 1123 (10th Cir.1995)). 4 . The conspiracy supporting the introduction of the out-of-court statement need not be the same as the conspiracy charged in the indictment, so long as the statement was in furtherance of the uncharged conspiracy. United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 82 (2d. Cir.1999); see also United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 675 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). 5 .Burnett testified at one point that he had 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a failure to instruct the jury on additional uncharged conspiracies is not reversible error so long as the jury is instructed that the government has the burden to prove the charged conspiracy (B) holding that although it is proper to instruct the jury that it may consider whether the factual predicates necessary to establish the prima facie case have been shown it is error to instruct the jury on the mcdonnell douglas burden shifting scheme (C) holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error (D) holding failure to instruct jury on requirement of corroboration of informants testimony is error (E) holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: Plaintiffs maintain that Sehultheis intentionally directed tortious actions towards an Oklahoma resident. Plaintiffs additionally assert that Sehultheis hired an Oklahoma attorney to represent him from 1997 until 2001, which establishes additional contact with Oklahoma. Plaintiffs maintain that Sehultheis has sufficient contacts with Oklahoma to satisfy the first prong of the minimum contact analysis for specific personal jurisdiction. Defendant maintains that Sehultheis did not call Clark but acknowledge that for the purpose of determining personal jurisdiction the Court may consider the Plaintiffs representation that the call was made. However, Defendants maintain that the telephone call is insufficient. See also Far West Capital Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1071, 1076-77 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Misco-United Supply Inc. v. Richards of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding one phone call by itself insufficient to find minimum contacts (B) holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts (C) holding that a contract governing a onetime sale and purchase of a product negotiated by fax and phone is insufficient to establish minimum contacts where delivery actually occurred in another state (D) holding defendants phone calls and ten to twenty faxes and letters insufficient contacts for minimum contacts (E) holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant
[EX A]:
(D)

