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: States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). By assenting to settlement in this action, Defendants waived, for example, the right to contest the EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction, which would have been an element of the EPA’s substantive claim. See United States v. Krilich, 209 F.3d 968, 972 (7th Cir.2000) (“[T]he interstate connection, i.e. that the waters involved were ‘waters of the United States,’ is merely an element of the United States’ Clean Water Act case under section 301.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 992, 121 S.Ct. 482, 148 L.Ed.2d 455 (2000); see also United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251, 264 (4th Cir.1997) (indicating proof of interstate nexus is an element of criminal liability under CWA); United States v. Ahmad, 101 F.3d 386, 391 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a consent decree “is an agreement 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional (B) recognizing the existence of the special relationship (C) recognizing existence of two tests (D) recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements (E) holding that one of the essential elements of an abuse of process claim is the existence of an ulterior motive

A: recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional
****
Q: 593, 598 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1, 135 L.Ed.2d 1098 (1996), and of mixed questions of law and fact, see Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). However, the state court’s factual findings underlying those determinations are presumed to be correct and binding, as long as they were made after a full, fair, and adequate hearing on the merits. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d) (West 1994) (pre-AED-PA); see also Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546-47, 101 S.Ct. 764, 768-69, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). The habeas petitioner bears the burden of es ing that the findings of the trial court on discriminatory intent in Batson challenge are reviewed for clear error); Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526, 534, 99 S.Ct. 2971, 2977, 61 L.Ed.2d 720 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. Plaster, 57 F.3d 417, 421 (4th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the intent to discriminate under batson is a pure issue of fact subject to review under a deferential standard (B) holding that the question of causation in a prima facie case of retaliation brought under general statutes  46a60 is factual in nature and thereby subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review (C) holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review (D) holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard (E) holding that a finding of accommodation is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review instead of under a de novo standard

A: holding that the intent to discriminate under batson is a pure issue of fact subject to review under a deferential standard
****
Q: Double Jeopardy Clause 'only proscribes resentencing where the defendant has developed a legitimate expectation of finality in his original sentence." Id. 18 (quoting Pasquarille v. United States, 130 F.3d 1220, 1222 (6th Cir.1997)); see also, United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 137-39, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); Warnick v. Booher, 425 F.3d 842, 847 (10th Cir.2005). 137 While this court has not yet considered whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the correction of a clerical error that amends a eriminal sentence, other jurisdictions have done so and have held that the correction does not violate principles of double jeopardy when there is no legitimate expectation of finality in the sentence. See Gallinat v. State, 941 So.2d 1237, 1238-42 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006)(<HOLDING>); People v. Minaya, 54 N.Y.2d 360, 445 N.Y.S.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the expectation of finality and tranquility is an interest protected by the prohibition on double jeopardy (B) holding that correction of trial courts miscalculation giving credit to defendant for time not actually served did not violate double jeopardy because defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality (C) holding that defendant did not have standing to raise facial challenge to validity of aggravated assault statutes for their risk of creating double jeopardy grounds because he himself was not charged in way that created double jeopardy (D) holding that correction of sentence to conform with plea agreement did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality (E) holding that a defendant is not entitled to credit for time served as a condition of probation

A:
recognizing that the expectation of finality and tranquility is an interest protected by the prohibition on double jeopardy
****