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.

Q: of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi appears to indicate that the assets must be blocked at the time judgment against the asset is finalized. See 556 U.S. 366, 369, 377-79, 129 S.Ct. 1732, 1735, 1739-40, 173 L.Ed.2d 511 (2009) (“We ultimately hold that the Cubic Judgment was not a ‘blocked asset’ at the time the Court of Appeals handed down its decision.... ”). The controlling determination in that case, though, was that the asset in question was never blocked because Iran’s interest in it arose after the Treasury Department unblocked all Iranian assets. Id. at 376, 129 S.Ct. at 1739. In Holy Land Foundation, the assets were unreachable because they were unblocked during the pendency of the original civil suit, prior to the commencement of any execution proceeding. 722 F.3d at 687 (<HOLDING>). This rule is not just prescribed by law; it 
 Holding statements: (A) holding recoupment statute unconstitutional because it did not provide for a hearing prior to entry of judgment (B) holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order (C) holding that the governments restraining order against a blocked asset obtained prior to the entry of a civil judgment unblocked it for tria purposes (D) recognizing that a stay contained in anex parte order did not serve to suspend the effectiveness of the restraining notice otherwise any judgment debtor could obtain such an order without notice to the court that a restraining notice had been served or to the judgment creditor and recover his property theretofore properly made the subject of the restraining notice (E) holding that the cubic judgment was not blocked

A: holding recoupment statute unconstitutional because it did not provide for a hearing prior to entry of judgment
****
Q: employee.” Lenoir v. Roll Coater, Inc., 13 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir.1994) citing Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). In this case, the Defendants state that Turner was fired because management honestly believed that Turner had directed threats towards other employees. The testimony of Gibbons, Woodward and Overstreet supports that story. The Court finds that the Defendants’ explanation has a reasonable basis in fact. The Court also finds that Turner’s alleged conduct, if true, would be sufficient to warrant discharge. There is no question that if the Defendants honestly believed that Turner actually made threats of violence, that Turner could be rightfully discharged. See Lenoir v. Roll Coater, 13 F.3d 1130, 1133 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 3. Pretext. Because the Defendants’ 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made (B) holding that if management honestly believed that the plaintiff employee possessed a weapon wielded at coworkers and made menacing comments then management had a reasonable explanation for discharging the plaintiff employee (C) holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct (D) holding that a partner in and accounting firm who brought an action under the age discrimination in employment act adea and the employee retirement income security act erisa was considered an employee because he was subject to the control of a management committee which acted in secrecy and had no bona fide ownership interest fiduciary relationship voting right or management control (E) holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice

A: holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made
****
Q: U.S. at 171-72, 98 S.Ct. at 2684-85. Since Gamory was not entitled to a Franks hearing, there was no violation of his rights to due process, confrontation, or right to counsel. B. THE RAP VIDEO Gamory challenges the District Court’s admission, over his objection, of the rap video that was described above. He contends the District Court abused its discretion by admitting the video because it was irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay, contrary to the Confrontation Clause, and unfairly prejudicial. In the District Court, Gamory only objected based on Fed. R.Evid. 403 “with regards to prejudicial information that’s contained on this video.” Because he did not preserve his relevancy, hearsay, and Confrontation Clause claims, they are subject to plain error review. See Arbolaez, 450 F.3d at 1291 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause (B) holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue (C) holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay (D) holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised (E) holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge

A:
holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause
****