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.

reasonably necessary. We affirm. Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. ít.App. P. 4(b). Background In the underlying criminal matter, defendant was indicted on August 22, 1995, on one count of possession of materials involving the sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). The indictment was based on three sexually explicit photographs, found in defendant’s home, which he had taken of his twelve-year-old stepdaughter. Defendant was tried before a jury and found guilty. On appeal, this court vacated the conviction based upon an evidentiary issue. United States v. Heidebur, 122 F.3d 577 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). On remand, defendant pled guilty. On January 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district courts admission of evidence that defendant had sexually molested his stepdaughter was improper because it showed propensity and was not probative of his knowing possession of the photographs (B) holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice (C) recognizing trial courts discretion in weighing the allegedlyimproper prejudicial aspects of photographs of victims against the photographs probative value (D) holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with (E) holding that district courts findings were not clearly erroneous where there was  sufficient evidence  that the defendants waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent
holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice

interests that a lawful permanent resident or even an illegal entrant residing more than two weeks may have developed.... Diaz Rodriguez has not shown that he has been lawfully admitted, so the due process rights of a lawfully admitted citizen are not implicated here.”). Accordingly, Petitioner has no constitutional due process rights in relation to her admission beyond that authorized by Congress. The restricted habeas review provisions set forth in Section 1252 adequately protect Petitioner’s rights because she has a meaningful review of the cause for her exclusion and of the Executive’s power to exclude her. The writ therefore has not been suspended and the Court lacks jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s claims. See Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1140-41; Lorenzo, 508 F.3d at 1281 (<HOLDING>); Vaupel, 244 Fed.Appx. at 895 (holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that section 1252e2 clearly does not permit court to review whether expedited removal statute applies in first place (B) holding that court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review aliens habeas claims seeking review of expedited removal order including whether expedited removal statute was lawfully applied to alien and whether expedited removal procedures violated his right to due process because language of section 1252e5 clearly precludes review in habeas proceedings of whether alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal (C) holding that strict limitations set forth in section 1252e preclude judicial review of any constitutional or statutory claims related to the underlying expedited removal order (D) holding that  1252a2a barred review of petitioners claims including asapplied due process challenges to expedited removal order (E) holding prior to enactment of section 1326d that a person charged with illegal reentry has a constitutional right to collaterally attack the underlying removal order when a due process violation in a removal proceeding amounts to a complete deprivation of judicial review
holding that section 1252e2 clearly does not permit court to review whether expedited removal statute applies in first place

statute is clearly erroneous. First, the FCHR’s conclusion that a personal representative of a decedent’s estate is not a “legal representative” of the deceased for all purposes is consistent with the specific and limited duties and powers of a personal representative as set forth in the Florida Probate Code. See §§ 733.602, 733.608, Fla. Stat. (2014). Second, the FCHR’s interpretation of the statute is in conformity with federal case law interpreting similar language in Title VIL See, e.g., Wright ex rel. Wright v. United States, 914 F.Supp.2d 837 (S.D.Miss.2012) (Title VII claim cannot be brought by personal representative of employee’s estate where the employee did not initiate the complaint for discrimination prior to death); Pueschel v. Veneman, 185 F.Supp.2d 566, 571 (D.Md.2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, Mr. Cimino did not initiate a complaint 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the survivor of a deceased federal employee has no standing to file an eeo complaint on behalf of that former employee but personal representative of deceased employee can be substituted as plaintiff if deceased employee initiated complaint prior to death (B) holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee (C) holding county employee with unenforceable contract was atwill employee (D) holding that a sexual assault on a female employee was of a personal nature and not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship (E) holding that where an employee has never requested the union to file a grievance the employee can hardly argue a breach of the duty of fair representation on the unions part

holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee