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:
venue, the propriety of venue is fixed in the county chosen by the plaintiff. Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 15.063 (Vernon 1986); Tex.R.Civ.P. 86-1. If a defendant objects to the plaintiffs venue choice and properly challenges that choice through a motion to transfer venue, the question of proper venue is raised. Tex.R.Civ.P. 86. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that venue is maintainable in the county of suit. Id. 87-2(a). If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the trial court must transfer the lawsuit to another specified county of proper venue. Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 15.063(1) (“The court ... shall transfer an action to another county of proper venue if ... the county in which the action is pending is not a proper county....”); Tieuel, 654 S.W.2d at 775 (<HOLDING>). If the plaintiff meets the burden, the trial 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if a modification petition is filed in a county where venue is appropriate it is improper to transfer the venue to another county merely because venue also would have been proper in the other county however once an enforcement proceeding is undertaken in an appropriate venue venue is improper in a different county over a subsequently filed petition to modify the decree which was the subject of the enforcement proceedings (B) recognizing that the plaintiff has the right to file suit in any permissible county (C) holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced (D) holding that even if venue was improper the case should have been transferred not dismissed (E) recognizing that if the plaintiff files suit in a county where venue does not lie the plaintiff waives the right to choose and the defendant may have the suit transferred to a proper venue

Ex Output:
holding that if a modification petition is filed in a county where venue is appropriate it is improper to transfer the venue to another county merely because venue also would have been proper in the other county however once an enforcement proceeding is undertaken in an appropriate venue venue is improper in a different county over a subsequently filed petition to modify the decree which was the subject of the enforcement proceedings


Ex Input:
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). By assenting to settlement in this action, Defendants waived, for example, the right to contest the EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction, which would have been an element of the EPA’s substantive claim. See United States v. Krilich, 209 F.3d 968, 972 (7th Cir.2000) (“[T]he interstate connection, i.e. that the waters involved were ‘waters of the United States,’ is merely an element of the United States’ Clean Water Act case under section 301.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 992, 121 S.Ct. 482, 148 L.Ed.2d 455 (2000); see also United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251, 264 (4th Cir.1997) (indicating proof of interstate nexus is an element of criminal liability under CWA); United States v. Ahmad, 101 F.3d 386, 391 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a consent decree “is an agreement 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional (B) recognizing the existence of the special relationship (C) recognizing existence of two tests (D) recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements (E) holding that one of the essential elements of an abuse of process claim is the existence of an ulterior motive

Ex Output:
recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional


Ex Input:
many of which were communicated before the assumed suggestive procedures. It bolsters the reliability of the identifications. See, e.g., Biggers, 409 U.S. at 200, 93 S.Ct. at 383; Goodman, 797 F.2d at 470. Lemon evidently gave detective Mook a description of the driver about one week after the offense, but that description is not in the trial record. Our inability to ascertain the accuracy of this prior description obviously prevents this fact from weighing in favor of the reliability of Lemon’s identification. However, it is also important to note that since it is an omission rather than an affirmative inaccuracy it does not cast doubt on other evidence supporting the reliability of the identification. Cf. United States ex rel. Hudson v. Brierton, 699 F.2d 917, 925 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, as the district court cogently noted, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in accepting  expert testimony  on the issue of reliability and rank order scoring that happened to include a component reliability estimate (B) holding finding of reliability not clearly erroneous despite lack of prior description (C) holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record (D) holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous (E) holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record

Ex Output:

holding that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in accepting  expert testimony  on the issue of reliability and rank order scoring that happened to include a component reliability estimate