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.

Q: a housing development. Streckfus, 504 N.E.2d at 274. She was an at-will employee but had an employment agreement with the development's management company. Id. at 274-275. Her employment agreement referenced a management contract between the development and the management company, and the management contract provided procedures by which the management company could terminate a Resident Manager. Id. Our supreme court held that "as a matter of law, the Employment Agreement did not contain any job security provision which altered the employment at will relationship. ... Id. at 276. The Trails fail to demonstrate that Eddie states a claim upon which relief could be granted based upon the Club's Articles of Incorporation or the Club's standard practices. See also Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 719-720 (<HOLDING>). Even viewing the Trails' breach of contract 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arbitration agreement in an employee handbook was illusory where the employer expressly reserved a right to unilaterally rescind any provisions of the handbook (B) holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will (C) holding employee handbook or employers printed statement of policy are promises in implied offer of unilateral contract which an employee can accept by beginning or continuing to work for employer (D) holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee (E) holding that an employee handbook did not constitute a valid unilateral contract between the employee and employer in the absence of adequate independent consideration

A: (E)
****
Q: would be dangerous, futile, or allow the destruction of evidence. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 1421, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). In this case, the trial court granted Broussard's motion in limine prohibiting any mention of what Officer Kwiatkowski learned to support the search warrant. Given this limited record, we cannot know whether one of the exceptions applies. Further, even if there was a violation of the knock-and-announce rule, the United States Supreme Court has not yet decided whether or to what extent the exclusionary rule should be used as a remedy. See Wilson, 514 U.S. at 937 n. 4, 115 S.Ct. at 1919 n. 4; United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 72 n. 3, 118 S.Ct. 992, 997 n. 3, 140 L.Ed.2d 191 (1998). 3 . See, e.g., Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 814-15 (<HOLDING>). 4 . In 1991, Broussard pleaded guilty to a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant waived ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsels failure to emphasize certain evidence where amended motion for new trial did not assert claim of ineffectiveness on that ground and no argument related to the asserted ground was made at the motion for new trial hearing (B) holding that the combined effect of trial counsels errors should be considered (C) holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court (D) holding ineffectiveness should be considered at hearing dedicated to considering all facts circumstances and rationale behind counsels actions including opportunity to explain why no objection was made in trial court (E) holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully

A: (D)
****
Q: Rodriguez-Vera argues that, because Revised Code of Washington § 9.41.170 includes antique firearms in its definition of firearms, his conviction under that statute does not categorically qualify as a firearm offense for purposes of being statuto rily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(1)(C) (referencing 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)). But Rodriguez-Vera failed to raise this argument before the BIA. Accordingly, Rodriguez-Vera failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, see Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>), and we lack jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a petitioner must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal (B) holding that the direction the governments appeal must take or whether it may appeal at all is to be governed by the substantial basis of the orders sought to be reviewed rather than their designation and form (C) holding that a petitioner must show  that the outcome of his appeal would have been different had counsel raised the issue (D) holding petitioner may not introduce on appeal issues that were not presented to or considered at the administrative level (E) holding that issues must be briefed to be preserved on appeal

A:
(A)
****