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: Joseph F. Nascimento and his minor daughter Kendall E. Nascimento appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), of their civil rights action seeking reversal of a Montana state court decision regarding the custody of Kendall Nascimento. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal and affirm. See H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court should abstain when an exercise of jurisdiction might lead to a parallel federal regulatory review mechanism complicating state administration (B) holding that federal district courts should abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings (C) holding that courts should only abstain under younger if the state proceedings are coercive and not remedial and citing a number of district court opinions (D) recognizing that the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings generally requires federal courts to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings (E) holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law

SOLUTION: holding that a court should abstain when an exercise of jurisdiction might lead to a parallel federal regulatory review mechanism complicating state administration

PROBLEM: State v. Gill, 47 N.J. 441, 444, 221 A.2d 521 (1966))); Twp. of Pennsauken v. Schad, 160 N.J. 156, 170, 733 A.2d 1159 (1999). Our construction of N.J.S.A 39:4-88(b) is thus consonant with established principles of statutory construction. | IV. Applying statutes that are identical or very similar to the statute before the Court, courts of other states have reached varying conclusions. Several decisions have construed analogous statutes to describe two offenses, as this Court construes N.J.S.A 39:4-88(b). See People v. Butler, 81 Cal.App.3d Supp. 6, 146 Cal.Rptr. 856, 857 (Cal.Ct.App.1978) (construing Cal. Veh.Code § 21658 to state “two affirmative duties placed upon the operator of a motor vehicle”); People v. Smith, 172 Ill.2d 289, 216 Ill.Dec. 658, 665 N.E.2d 1215, 1218 (1996) (<HOLDING>); State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657, 215 P.3d 601, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders (B) holding that plain language of 625 ill comp stat ann 511709 establishes two separate requirements for lane usage (C) holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning (D) holding that in context of motion for reconsideration or to reopen congress envisioned two separate timely petitions for review of two separate final orders (E) holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms

SOLUTION: holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders

PROBLEM: In order to exhaust his claim based on the mandatory minimum, Wardell needed to “properly raisef ]” it in the state courts. Judd, 250 F.3d at 1313 (emphasis added). He did not do so when he made his claim based on the 85% rule. This case is indistinguishable from Kelley v. Secretary for Department of Corrections, where we ruled that a habeas petitioner had not exhausted the claim for ineffective assistance of counsel that he attempted to raise on federal habeas where he had not mentioned the same ineffectiveness theory in his Florida Rule 3.850 motion. 377 F.3d 1317, 1350 (11th Cir. 2004). This was true even though there was some testimony on that theory at his Rule 3.850 hearing. Id.; see also Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 380 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Because Warden’s claim is now clearly 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a petitioner does not fairly present his claim where the claim has been presented for the first and only time in a procedural context in which its merits will not ordinarily be considered (B) holding that this court will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief (C) holding where a claim is presented for the first and only time in a procedural context in which the merits are not likely to be considered unless there are special and important reasons the petition is not exhausted (D) holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal (E) holding that ordinarily courts are not obligated to review evidence presented for the first time on appeal

SOLUTION:
holding that this court will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief