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:
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

Ex Output:
recognizing that failure to observe the required process deprives the court of jurisdiction


Ex Input:
abused its discretion by providing an unreasonable characterization of the record evidence. See McElwee, 896 A.2d at 18 & nn. 7-8. While SEPTA claims that this, too, necessarily entailed unwarranted fact-finding on the part of the Commonwealth Court, we believe that it aligns with the approach utilized in Sienkiewicz I, wherein this Court not only determined that no record evidence existed to support a particular factual finding central to the trial court’s decision to grant relief (i.e., that Penn-DOT had installed curbing along the “Stafford Straightaway”), but proceeded to delineate the essential facts that were proved by the uncontradicted record evidence in ultimately agreeing with Penn-DOT’s position that relief was unjustified. See Sienkiewicz I, 584 Pa. at 282, 883 A.2d at 502 (<HOLDING>). Under the circumstances of this case, then, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the evidence establishes that direct access to landowners property was always from the stafford straightaway factually there was never any direct access from the stafford curve rather this portion of the roadway like davis street and the route 81 ramps was merely part of an adjacent road system providing a convenient flow of traffic in the direction of landowners property (B) holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property (C) recognizing distinction and allowing recovery for impairment of access and not obstructed flow of traffic (D) holding that the landownerlicensee relationship ceased when the licensee left the landowners property (E) holding in an inverse condemnation case that the abutting landowners right of direct access was subservient to the city of portlands proper exercise of its governmental powers for purposes of public safety and convenience and that the elimination of access from the landowners property to the affected street did not constitute a taking

Ex Output:
holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property


Ex Input:
a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.” (Emphasis added.) Even assuming that Petitioner’s crime was a misdemeanor, the statute permits imprisonment “in a county jail for not exceeding one year.” Id. Because the statute permits imprisonment for one year, the one-year requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) is met even if Petitioner’s crime was a misdemeanor. iar-Lopez, the state court never declared Petitioner’s offense to be a misdemeanor. Id. at 845. Because section 17(b) does not apply and because the minute order designated Petitioner’s conviction as a felony, we hold that Petitioner’s conviction was a felony. See United States v. Robinson, 967 F.2d 287, 293 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), recognized as overruled in other part by 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the standard was met when two actions were related to the same assets and were based upon almost identical breaches of fiduciary duty (B) holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense (C) holding that proof of an agreement to commit a felony is not a necessary element in a conviction for the commission of the felony (D) holding in circumstances identical to petitioners here that the requirements of  17b1 and 3 of the california penal code were not met and accordingly the conviction was a felony (E) holding that requirements of apprendi were not met where facts on which sentence enhancement was based were not charged and submitted to the jury

Ex Output:

holding that the standard was met when two actions were related to the same assets and were based upon almost identical breaches of fiduciary duty