TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: effect of an admission by a defendant against a codefendant. {10} Although Rule 1-036 does not address whether a defendant’s deemed admissions can be used against a codefendant, this Court has held that such admissions may not be used against a codefendant. See Wilson v. Galt, 100 N.M. 227, 236, 668 P.2d 1104, 1113 (Ct.App.1983) (stating that Rule 1-036 admissions apply to and bind the party making the admissions, not codefendants). Moreover, other courts that have addressed this issue have likewise concluded that the admissions of a defendant cannot be used against a codefendant. See, e.g., Becerra v. Asher, 105 F.3d 1042, 1048 (5th Cir.1997) (“Deemed admissions by a party opponent cannot be used against a co-party.”); United States v. Wheeler, 161 F.Supp. 193, 198 (W.D.Ark.1958) (<HOLDING>); Darnall v. Petersen, 8 Neb.App. 185, 592 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies when his claim is deemed denied because of failure of administrator to respond in a timely manner (B) holding that failure to file timely responses to a request for admissions renders them admitted (C) holding that plaintiffs failure to respond to argument warranted dismissal with prejudice (D) holding that facts deemed admitted as to one defendant because of his failure to respond to the plaintiffs request for admissions are not binding on a codefendant (E) holding that requests for admissions seeking purely legal conclusions are inappropriate and the failure to respond to such a request may not be the basis for a summaiy judgment

SOLUTION: holding that a plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies when his claim is deemed denied because of failure of administrator to respond in a timely manner

PROBLEM: 2009) (citations omitted) (quoting Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi, 238 F.3d at 1332-33); accord Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The arbitrary and capricious standard ... requires a reviewing court to sustain an agency action evincing rational reasoning and consideration of relevant factors.”); see also Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc., 401 U.S. at 416, 91 S.Ct. 814 (“The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”). In addition to showing “a significant error in the procurement process,” a protestor must show “that the error prejudiced it.” Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). “To establish prejudice ..., a protester must 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a bid award may be set aside if either 1 the procurement officials decision lacked a rational basis or 2 the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure (B) holding that if the procuring agencys decision lacked a rational basis or was made in violation of the applicable statutes regulations or procedures the court must then determine as a factual matter if the bid protester was prejudiced by that conduct (C) holding a bid award may be set aside if either 1 the procurement officials decision lacked a rational basis or 2 if the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure (D) holding that a protester must show that the governments error in a bid evaluation was so significant that the government had no reasonable basis for its best value determination (E) holding that in bid protest cases  a bid award may be set aside if either 1 the procurement officials decision lacked a rational basis or 2 the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure 

SOLUTION: holding that a bid award may be set aside if either 1 the procurement officials decision lacked a rational basis or 2 the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure

PROBLEM: Lee McNair appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice as frivolous and as barred by the terms of a pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McNair v. Evan, No. 4:12-cv-00069-FL, 2012 WL 2579338 (E.D.N.C. July 4 & 11, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED. * Generally, orders dismissing complaints without prejudice are interlocutory and not ap-pealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). However, orders dismissing actions or cases 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is a final appealable order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the  case internal quotation marks omitted (B) holding that a dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case (C) holding that dismissal without prejudice is final appealable order where no amendment to complaint could cure deficiencies identified by district court (D) holding that when the trial court signed an order dismissing the plaintiffs complaint but refused to enter a final judgment on that order the order refusing to enter judgment was appealable under former ors 190102a (E) holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired

SOLUTION:
holding that a dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case