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 Q]: States Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). The Supreme Court has recognized that “searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). However, the Supreme Court has permitted exceptions to the warrant requirement when “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment) (allowing school officials to conduct warrantless searches of student property without probable cause); see also O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-74, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable (B) holding neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause requirement should apply to noninvestigatory workrelated purposes or for investigations of workrelated misconduct  (C) holding a person may consent to warrantless searches as a condition of a suspended sentence (D) holding  1983 action lies for warrantless arrest without probable cause (E) holding that government employers may conduct warrantless workrelated searches of employees offices without probable cause
[EX A]: holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable

[EX Q]: his first issue, Samba maintains that the immigration judge placed too little weight on the length of his sentence and the assistance he provided to federal agencies in determining that the offense was a particularly serious crime. We have previously determined that such a claim, “which amount[s] to an argument that the immigration judge ‘abused [his] discretion in weighing the multiple desiderata made relevant by the [BIA’s] definition of a particularly serious crime,’ do[es] not present questions of law and therefore [is] not reviewable under section 1252(a)(2)(D).” Solorzano-Moreno v. Mukasey, 296 Fed.Appx. 391, 394 (5th Cir.2008) (third alteration in original) (quoting Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800, 802 (7th Cir.2006)); see also Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). To the extent that the first issue challenges 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a (B) holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations (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 the argument that the immigration judge did not consider all of the relevant factors in determining that his children would not suffer the requisite hardship was not a question of law under  1252a2d (E) holding that the family court is required to consider all relevant factors in determining alimony
[EX A]: holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a

[EX Q]: (citing Mercantile Bank v. Hoyle (In re Hoyle), 183 B.R. 635, 638 (Bankr.D.Kan.1995); Bank One Columbus, N.A. v. McDonald (In re McDonald), 177 B.R. 212, 216-17 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1994); Chase Manhattan Bank v. Weiss (In re Weiss), 139 B.R. 928 (Bankr.D.S.D.1992); Household Card Serv./Visa v. Vermillion (In re Vermillion), 136 B.R. 225, 226-27 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1992)). 50 . Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Hernandez (In re Hernandez), 208 A. 62 . Field v. Mans, — U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 437, 444, 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995). See also Household Credit Serv., Inc. v. Walters (In re Walters), 208 B.R. 651, 653 (W.D.La.1997). 63 . Id. 64 . Id. (quoting, Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 541, Comment a (1976)). 65 . Id. 66 . Id. (quoting, Restatement (Second) of Tort In re Ward), 857 F.2d 1082, 1085 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Household Credit Serv., Inc. v. Walters (In 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that at a minimum a credit check must be preformed before a credit card is issued in order to have any resulting debt declared nondischargeable (B) holding the assumption of a credit card debt to be nondischargeable based on a waiver of alimony and a significant disparity of income (C) holding that student debt declared nondischargeable remains subject to the automatic stay (D) holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable (E) recognizing statutory credit
[EX A]:
holding the assumption of a credit card debt to be nondischargeable based on a waiver of alimony and a significant disparity of income