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: of benefits in 1989 established a "pattern” of benefit increases such that the Plan's later rescission of the 1999 Benefits Increase, which was adopted ten years after the 1989 increase, violated the anti-cutback rule. We find this argument to be without merit as a matter of law. 18 . Thornton also alleges that the Board breached its fiduciary duty by favoring one class of Plan participants over another class, specifically by eliminating the 1999 Benefits Increase for pre-February 1, 1999 retirees while maintaining it for Plan participants retiring on or after that date. Thornton waived this argument on appeal, however, by waiting until his reply brief to address the issue, rather than raising it first in his opening brief. United States v. Perkins, 994 F.2d 1184, 1191 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 19 . 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) states in relevant 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited (B) holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived (C) holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived (D) holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this court (E) holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court

A: holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited
****
Q: claims); see also Stewart, 104 N.M. at 748, 726 P.2d at 1378 (“An insurance policy is a contract and is generally governed by the law of contracts, and the rights and duties of the parties are to be determined by its terms.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, we held that 8.75% was the proper interest to be assessed on the contract damages. {40} Like the trial court in Teague-Strebeck, the trial court in our case awarded damages based on the insurance contract— $100,000 in UM coverage. See 1999-NMCA-109, ¶¶63-64, 127 N.M. 603, 985 P.2d 1183 (observing that the plaintiff “was awarded the benefit of its bargain, the extent of insurance coverage promised by [the defendant’s agent]”); cf. Ellis v. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Cos., 1999-NMSC-034, ¶1, 128 N.M. 54, 989 P.2d 429 (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that 8.75% is the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sixyear contract statute of limitations did not apply reasoning that an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on breach of warranty is only nominally based on contract (B) holding that this courts sixyear statute of limitations is jurisdictional (C) holding that sixyear statute of limitations in  65314 is applicable to violations of  7202 (D) recognizing a sixyear statute of limitations on claims filed under the coal act (E) holding that the sixyear statute of limitations on a written contract is applicable to a cause of action based on a um policy

A: holding that sixyear contract statute of limitations did not apply reasoning that an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on breach of warranty is only nominally based on contract
****
Q: of the Miami-Dade owners. Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari quashing the Miami-Dade Circuit Court’s order on the basis that the order departed from the essential requirements of the law, causing irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal. See Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice, Inc., 770 So.2d 221, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We grant the writ. The mandate in Pompano Beach was issued on January 21, 2003, before the Broward Circuit Court transferred the case to the Miami-Dade Circuit Court. Upon the issuance of the mandate from the Fourth District, the Broward Circuit Court’s role became purely ministerial, and its function was limited to obeying the Fourth District’s decree. See Torres v. Jones, 652 So.2d 893, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citations omitted)(<HOLDING>). Pursuant to Pompano Beach, the Broward 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding (B) holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole (C) holding that a trial courts role upon the issuance of a mandate from an appellate court becomes purely ministerial and its function is limited to obeying the appellate courts order or decree (D) holding that a lower court is bound by the decree of the appellate court and can only enter a judgment or decree in strict compliance with the appellate courts mandate (E) holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact

A:
holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding
****