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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

subjective, although it is usually proved by inference from the acts of the accused. Thus, intentionally entering or intentionally remaining unlawfully upon the described premises with the intent to commit any crime against a person or property rights constituted burglary, and therefore, it cannot logically be said that specifying the particular crime intended to be committed is, under our statutes, an essential element which must be alleged in order to charge the crime of burglary actual commission of a second underlying offense, in order to sufficiently charge the offense, it is incumbent on the State to allege the essential elements of the underlying offense; identification of the offense by name or statutory reference will not suffice. Cf. Elliott, 77 Hawaii at 312, 884 P.2d at 375 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we adopt the rule set out in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number (B) holding that a charge not taken under oath or affirmation is not a valid charge (C) holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review (D) holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence (E) holding that statutory references in charge did not cure the omission of essential elements in the challenged counts of the charge
holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number

opportunity to be heard on the issue ofrepayment of unemployment benefits. {32} The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a due pr e Court of Appeals of Minnesota that distinguish Schulte where the Court ultimately held that there was no constitutional violation when the employee did participate in the hearing. See Comm ’r of Nat. Res. v. Nicollet Cty.Pub. Water/Wetlands Hearings Unit, 633 N.W.2d 25, 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (affirming an appellate denial of the appellant’s due process claim based on constitutionally valid notice of the hearing because the appellant knew the potential consequences of a reversal of the initial decision and participated in the appeal with counsel); see also Aubin v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. A14-0483, 2014 WL 6724937, at *4-5 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2014) (<HOLDING>); Koch v. Sheldahl, No. A03-1562, 2004 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination (B) holding that it is not (C) holding that doctrine does not violate due process (D) holding that online system of appeals did not violate due process rights because it was not affirmatively misleading and it adequately explained the potential consequences of failing to file a timely appeal citations omitted (E) holding that on summary judgment a court may not disregard evidence merely because it serves the interests of the party introducing it citations omitted
holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination

surviving spouse, or so long as the survivor elects to use or occupy the same as a homestead”), now codified at Tex. Estates Code Ann. §§ 102.003, 102.005 (West 2014). 12 . See 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1), (3) (allowing debtor to exempt property under applicable state law); Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 41.001 (providing homestead exemption under Texas law that is unlimited in amount). 13 . Pub.L. No. 109-8, § 322, 119 Stat. 23, 96-97 (2005). 14 . Wallace v. Rogers (In re Rogers), 513 F.3d 212, 217 (5th Cir.2008). 15 . The Judicial Conference of the United States adjusted the dollar amount from $125,000 to $136,875 in 2007, from $136,875 to $146,450 in 2010, and from $146,450 to $155,675 in 2013. Id. at 217 n. 2 (citing 72 Fed.Reg. 7082-01 (Feb. 14, 2007)); 78 Fed. Reg. 12089-01 (Feb. 21, 773 (1942) (<HOLDING>). 28 . See Benchmark Bank v. Crowder, 919 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area (B) holding that rights under vienna convention are not the equivalent of fundamental rights such as the right to counsel (C) holding that it is well settled that while one tenant in common may acquire homestead rights in the common property the rights so acquired are not superior to the rights and remedies of the other joint owners he can acquire no such rights as will prejudice or in anywise interfere with the rights of the other tenants in common (D) recognizing that unit owners own the common elements in fee as tenants in common (E) holding that where an individual is deprived of liberty or property interests in violation of article of the state declaration of rights he may enforce those rights by a common law action for damages

holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area