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.

Example Input: cap in determining the amount of benefits another person was able to receive. Id. at 615. Although in Parisi, the child was suffering from the technical entitlement, the case stands for the proposition that a technical entitlement of zero should be counted as zero when computing family máximums. Considering that the purpose of the family maximum is to set a maximum that can be given from one wage earner’s account, Parisi complies with this purpose. IV. BY CITING PARISI, HAS PLAINTIFF RAISED A NEW ISSUE THAT IS NOT PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THIS JUDICIAL REVIEW? “[I]f petitioner wishes to preserve an issue for appeal, he must first raise it in the proper administrative forum_” Tejeda-Mata v. INS, 626 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir.1980); See Chung Young Chew v. Boyd, 309 F.2d 857, 861 (9th Cir.1962) (<HOLDING>). Yet, in Tejeda-Mata the court held this “in 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that failure to observe the required process deprives the court of jurisdiction (B) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review because the aliens did not appeal the ijs denial of their motion to reopen to the board resulting in failure to exhaust their administrative remedies (C) holding that partys failure to file a timely internal administrative appeal as required by regulations of the department of agriculture constituted failure to exhaust administrative remedies and precluded judicial action (D) recognizing that failure by state to provide the required certification deprives appeals court of jurisdiction over appeal (E) holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review
Example Output: recognizing that failure to observe the required process deprives the court of jurisdiction

Example Input: that subsequent extraneous offenses are admissible to show a defendant’s intent as to an earlier offense. See U.S. v. Germosen, 139 F.3d 120, 128 (2nd Cir.1998) (upholding admission of subsequent act under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent regarding charged offense and holding, “[t]he fact that the evidence involved a subsequent rather than prior act is of no moment”); U.S. v. Latney, 108 F.3d 1446, 1449 (D.C.Cir.) (construing Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and holding that it “draws no distinction b Austin 1990, no pet.) (same). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Russell’s contention that the Vogt Street offense was not admissible simply because it occurred after the Fast Freddy’s offense. Cf. Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 380 (<HOLDING>). Although, based on the authorities cited by 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the grant of an injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion but without deference to the legal conclusions of the trial court (B) recognizing that an appellate court reviews a trial courts decision whether or not to grant equitable relief only for an abuse of discretion (C) holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion (D) holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (E) recognizing that an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts without reference to any guiding principles or rules
Example Output: holding that the grant of an injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion but without deference to the legal conclusions of the trial court

Example Input: (emphasis added) (quoting Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 720). 27 . Faust, 337 S.W.3d at 335 (emphasis added). 28 . Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tex.1995). 29 . See Crump, 330 S.W.3d at 218. 30 . Synar v. Union Pac. R. Co., No. 12—99— 00428-CV, 2001 WL 1263573, at *6 (Tex.App.-Tyler Oct. 17, 2001, pet. denied) (not designated for publication). 31 . See id. 32 . See Tex.R. Evid. 803(18); Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 556. 33 . C 545 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, pet. denied) (op. on reh'g). 55 . See id. 56 . See Tex.R. Evid. 401; Nichols, 379 S.W.3d at 387-89. 57 . See Sw. Country Enters., Inc., 991 S.W.2d at 493-94; see also Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(B), 33.2; Tex.R. Evid. 103(a)(2). 58 . See Barraza v. Eureka Co., Inc., 25 S.W.3d 225, 232 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). 59 . See Charter Oak Fire Ins. v. Perez, 446 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiff had no legitimate expectation of privacy at a meeting with coworkers in which her termination was discussed (B) holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment (C) holding that a plaintiff who pled in her complaint that her law firm actively misled her in support of her request for application of the discovery rule had sufficiently pled the application of the doctrine (D) holding that testimony of plaintiff and her coworkers regarding cause of her injury was pure conjecture (E) holding that plaintiffs allegations that her supervisor was a lesbian and that she made improper remarks to her including telling the plaintiff to invite her to lunch and making comments about plaintiffs coworkers private lives and sexual preferences   and on one occasion approaching the plaintiff from behind hugging her and whispering in her ear a request for a cookie from another table did not suffice to establish a hostile working environment
Example Output:
holding that the plaintiff had no legitimate expectation of privacy at a meeting with coworkers in which her termination was discussed