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:
to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3); see Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. Cnty. of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir.2004). Here, the district court found that Moniz “simply is attempting to re-argue [] issues which were already ruled upon by the Court when it dismissed his Complaint,” and thus denied the motion to reconsider. R. 14 (Dist. Ct. Order at 3) (Page ID # 129). This court has stated that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider where the motion “merely raise[s] arguments that were already ruled upon.” Graham, 358 F.3d at 385; see also Lommen v. McIntyre, 125 Fed.Appx. 655, 659 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). There was no abuse of discretion in the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing (B) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (D) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for reconsideration where the motion presented nothing new and merely rephrased allegations in the complaint (E) holding under third circuit law that the denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion

Ex Output:
holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing


Ex Input:
commercial, including ... [any maritime contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce], falls under the Convention. An agreement or award arising out of such a relationship which is entirely between citizens of the United States shall be deemed not to fall under the Convention unless that relationship involves property located abroad, envisages performance or enforcement abroad, or has some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states. For the purpose of this section a corporation is a citizen of the United States if it is incorporated or has its principal place of business in the United States. 9 U.S.C. §§ 201 and 202; see also 9 U.S.C. § 2. A seaman’s contract that contains an agreement to arbitrate generally falls under the convention. Bautista, 396 F.3d at 1299 (<HOLDING>) (citing Francisco v. STOLT ACHIEVEMENT MT, 293 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous (B) holding implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing found in some commercial contracts does not extend to atwill employment contracts (C) holding that contracts for an indefinite period are excluded from the statutes coverage (D) holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims (E) holding that the convention and us implementing statutes do not recognize an exception for seaman employment contracts and concluding that such contracts are commercial for purposes of same

Ex Output:
holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous


Ex Input:
24 . It appears Plaintiffs themselves recognized this at some point. In their original Motion for Entry of Judgment, Plaintiffs sought as damages the entire principal amount of the underlying-judgment of $5,830,000. In their supplemental brief, Plaintiffs modified their request to seek the remaining principal of the underlying excess verdict of $5,730,000 ($5,830,000 - $100,000). 25 . Interest = Principal x Rate x Time in years: $5,830,000 x 6.25% x (493 days/365 days). 26 . Had Nationwide wanted to reduce the amount of interest accruing on the judgment, it could have paid its $100,000 policy limits immediately after the judgment was entered and before any substantial amount of interest had accrued. See JTH Tax, Inc. v. Flowers, 311 Ga.App. 495, 497, 716 S.E.2d 559, 561 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Threatt v. Forsyth Cnty., 250 Ga. App. 838, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a bankruptcy trustee is an officer of the court appointed by the court directed by the court and paid by the court but is in no sense an agent or employee or officer of the united states (B) holding that the interest must be that created by a claim to the demand in suit or some part thereof  which is the subject of litigation (C) holding that a judgment debtor may abate the accrual of interest by paying amount owed and may abate the accrual of interest during appeal by complying with ocga  91167 by depositing with the court all or any part of such sum  to be held by the clerk of the court subject to withdrawal in whole or in part at any time thereafter upon order of the court upon posting of sufficient security (D) holding that jurisdiction of the subject matter  in either a civil or criminal action may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even after a plea of guilty and for the first time in the appellate court (E) holding in the context of a case involving the availability for public inspection of criminal docket books that files in the possession of the clerk of the criminal court of the city of new york are public records which may be fully examined by any person unless the papers have been sealed from public scrutiny by the court or by the terms of a statute

Ex Output:

holding that a bankruptcy trustee is an officer of the court appointed by the court directed by the court and paid by the court but is in no sense an agent or employee or officer of the united states