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.

Ex Input:
court’s conclusion that the Jarvisons had a traditional ceremonial marriage under the Navajo Code. Moreover, because the Jarvi-sons had not completed the procedure under Navajo law to validate a traditional or common law marriage, the government argues that their marriage was invalid. In evaluating the government’s contentions, we observe that the district court could have produced a more robust order detailing its findings of fact and evidentia-ry basis similar to the detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law in Beller v. United States, 221 F.R.D. 679 (D.N.M.2003). Nonetheless, on our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish a valid marriage between the Jarvisons. See United States v. Taylor, 97 F.3d 1360, 1364 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Esther testified to having 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that despite a trial courts failure to make specific factual findings an appellate court is free to affirm on any grounds for which there is sufficient record to permit conclusions of law (B) holding an appellate court is not limited to the grounds offered by the trial court in support of its decision and may affirm on any ground on which additional factual findings are not required (C) holding that an appellate court can affirm a district courts order on any basis for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law including grounds upon which the district court did not rely (D) holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds (E) holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact

Ex Output:
holding an appellate court is not limited to the grounds offered by the trial court in support of its decision and may affirm on any ground on which additional factual findings are not required


Ex Input:
by [the motorist].” Freitas II, 108 Hawai'i at 44, 116 P.3d at 686 (citing Desmond, 91 Hawai'i at 219, 982 P.2d at 353) (brackets in original). In Desmond, the ICA noted that “it is advisable that, at the commencement of the administrative hearing, the Hearing Officer inform the parties what procedure he or she will follow.” 91 Hawai'i at 219, 982 P.2d at 353 (emphasis added). In rejecting Freitas’s argument, this court observed that “procedural due process requires that a person have an ‘opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” 108 Hawai'i at 44, 116 P.3d at 686 (quoting Farmer v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 94 Hawai'i 232, 238, 11 P.3d 457, 463 (2000)); cf. Padilla-Agustin v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 21 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Since the hearing officer had advised Freitas 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that due process requires not only notice but sufficient information to allow petitioner to prepare and present objection to the agencys preliminary action or decision (B) holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner (C) holding that constitutional due process in civil contempt proceedings requires notice and a hearing but not the right to counsel (D) holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case (E) holding that due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated under all circumstances to provide parties with notice of the pending action

Ex Output:
holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner


Ex Input:
that the cited driver will not appear in court or is under the influence, the officer is statutorily empowered with discretion to arrest or cite the driver. 16 The case before us is distinguishable from Collins v. State, 113 Nev. 1177, 946 P.2d 1055 (1997), and Ortega v. Reyna, 114 Nev. 55, 953 P.2d 18 (1998), which were decided based on the mandatory provision of NRS 484.795. 17 Black’s Law Dictionary 419 (5th ed. 1979) (emphasis added). 18 Id. (emphasis added). 19 Osburn v. State, 118 Nev. 323, 325-26, 44 P.3d 523, 525 (2002); see also Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 772 (2001) (explaining states may restrict police power under state law to a greater degree than the Supreme Court holds is necessary under the Federal Constitution); California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 (1988) (<HOLDING>). 20 Zale-Las Vegas v. Bulova Watch, 80 Nev. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the idaho constitution provides no greater protection from double jeopardy than does the federal constitution (B) holding that our federal constitution undoubtedly imposes constraints on the states power to control the selection of ones spouse (C) recognizing that state constitution imposes more stringent limitations on power of state to inquire into lawful associations and speech than those imposed by federal constitution (D) holding that under leatherman a federal court may not apply a pleading requirement more stringent than that provided for in the federal rules of civil procedure even in  1983 litigation (E) holding that individual states may    construe their own constitutions as imposing more stringent constraints on police conduct than does the federal constitution

Ex Output:

holding that the idaho constitution provides no greater protection from double jeopardy than does the federal constitution