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.

Input: Consider Input: a threat to water quality because they do not introduce any invasive species from outside the Great Lakes. EPA has properly rejected this argument, noting that Lakers can spread or more rapidly distribute invasive species already present, in the Great Lakes. Id. at 501. 16 . Federal regulation permits such limits to be expressed narratively if the calculation of numeric limits is "infeasible.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k)(3). 17 . EPA also claims general prohibitions can be BMPs, citing 40 C.F.R. § 122.2, but does not offer an example of something as general as the WQBEL standard being found to be a BMP. As discussed herein, the EPA’s charac-terizationis inconsistent with regulations that require WQBELs to "ensure compliance.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(d); see Auer, 519 U.S. at 461, 117 S.Ct. 905 (<HOLDING>). 18 . EPA’s response is that petitioners’ 
 Holding statements: (A) holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation (B) holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation (C) holding that courts should defer to agencys interpretation of its own regulations if not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation (D) holding that a secretarys interpretation of a departments regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation (E) holding that deference is owed to an agencys interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation

Output: holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation


Input: Consider Input: of common law fraud, it is considered a fraudulent act and is protected by 9(b)). We conclude that 9(b) applies to FCA fraud claims because not only is such a conclusion in accord with other courts and our more recent decisions, but also because its applicability is consistent with the purposes of Rule 9: (1) to inhibit claims that are filed as a pretext to uncover unknown wrongs; (2) to protect defendants from the harm that results from charges of serious wrongdoing; and (3) to give defendants notice of the complained-of conduct, enabling defendants to prepare a defense. Coronet Insurance Co. v. Seyfarth, 665 F.Supp. 661, 666 (N.D.Ill.1987). See also U.S. ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., 755 F.Supp. 1055, 1058 (S.D.Ga.1990) (<HOLDING>); U.S. ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a broad claim with no factual support was insufficient to satisfy rule 9b (B) holding that rule 9b applies to fca (C) holding that californias ucl claims are subject to rule 9b pleading standards (D) holding that charge of money laundering need not satisfy rule 9b (E) holding plaintiffs speculations did not satisfy rule 9b requirements

Output: holding a broad claim with no factual support was insufficient to satisfy rule 9b


Input: Consider Input: favor of the Department of Veterans Affairs in her Title VII action alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748, 754 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant on Brooks’s discrimination and retaliation claims because Brooks did not raise a triable issue of fact concerning pretext. See Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that a plaintiff “must produce sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason is merely a pretext for discrimination.”); see also Moran, 447 F.3d at 759 (<HOLDING>); Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that unauthenticated documents cannot be considered at summary judgment (B) holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial (C) holding that unverified pleadings do not constitute competent summary judgment evidence (D) holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff (E) holding that unverified complaints cannot be considered as evidence at the summary judgment stage


Output: holding that unauthenticated documents cannot be considered at summary judgment