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: comply with those conditions. See § 32A-2-13(G). In addition, Gerald received oral notification from the children’s court at his plea hearing that detention would result from failure to comply with certain grade court conditions. Gerald’s counsel and mother were present at the plea hearing. Gerald repeatedly told the court that he understood the conditions. {38} Furthermore, when Gerald signed the plea agreement and grade court order, he received the considerable benefit of being released into the community. Gerald now seeks to be relieved of the conditions of release while leaving the rest of the plea agreement intact. Having received the benefit of the plea, Gerald may not now complain that the conditions are invalid. Cf State v. Trujillo, 117 N.M. 769, 772, 877 P.2d 575, 578 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Herrera, 2001-NMCA-073, ¶25 (stating that 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that both parties to a plea bargain make various concessions and gain certain advantages during plea negotiations and underscoring that a criminal defendant having availed himself of the advantages of a plea agreement cannot welch on his part of the bargain internal quotation marks and citation omitted (B) holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining an accepted plea bargain must be recorded and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense (C) recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea (D) recognizing that a single guilty plea may embody a series of interrelated concessions between the parties and allows the defendant to withdraw the entire plea when one part of the agreement fails (E) holding defendant did not prove an enforceable agreement only that there was some discussion of a plea bargain

A: holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining an accepted plea bargain must be recorded and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense
****
Q: in the petition no later than thirty days from the day on which the first defendant was served. Id. at 1262-63 (internal citations omitted). As a general premise, under the “first-served rule,” defendants who are properly served within thirty days of the first defendant’s service must join in the removal petition. The “failure to do so renders the petition defective.” Id. at 1262. Under the facts of Getty, however, the application of the first-served rule did not produce an inequitable result. Nonetheless, recognizing the potential for harsh results, other decisions provide that exceptional circumstances may sometimes require relief from strict application of the rule in order to achieve equitable results. See Milstead Supply Co. v. Cas. Ins. Co., 797 F.Supp. 569, 573 (W.D.Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 482 (5th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties (B) holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective (C) holding that dismissal of some but not all of the defendants who had been served with complaint is not a final order (D) holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served (E) holding that the defendants consent to search was voluntary although he had been served with a subpoena

A: holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties
****
Q: its content. Id. It is well-established that Rule 1002 does not apply in situations where the mere existence of an independent factual condition is sought to be proved, even if the condition is contained in or effectuated through a writing. See Fed.R.Evid. 1002 advisory committee’s note (“[A]n event may be proved by nondocumentary evidence, even though a written record of “it was made.... For example, payment may be proved without producing the written receipt which was given. Earnings may be proved without producing books of account in which they are entered.”); Dalton v. FDIC, 987 F.2d 1216, 1223 (5th Cir.1993) (concluding the rule did not apply to proof of a debt through an affidavit rather than bank documentation); see also United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 483 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Ms. Smith testified that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate (B) holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth (C) recognizing that production of a written insurance policy was unnecessary to prove the existence of the policy because the proof required was proof of the fact of insurance and not of the contents of a writing (D) holding trial court should have required segregation because tort claims entailed proof of facts unnecessary for proof of the contract claim (E) holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer

A:
holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate
****