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.

[Q]: § 42-217. If, based on the proof submitted by the applicant and the field examination, the Department “is satisfied that the law has been fully complied with and that the water is being used at the place claimed and for the purpose for which it was originally intended, the [Department shall issue to such user or users a license confirming such use.” I.C. § 42-219(1). On the other hand, “[i]n the event that the [Department shall find that the applicant has not fully complied with the law and the conditions of permit, it may issue a license f ls Ground Water Dist., 141 Idaho 746, 753, 118 P.3d 78, 85 (2005) (finding that “a party is not entitled to vested rights in a water right by virtue of filing a permit application”); Hardy v. Higginson, 123 Idaho 485, 491, 849 P.2d 946, 952 (1993) (<HOLDING>). However, this Court has never considered the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that until the state issues a certificate of appropriation any right to use the water remains inchoate (B) holding that simply because claimants had diverted the entire run of the water at issue did not give them the ability to claim a right to all the water when they could not and had not put it to beneficial use (C) holding that the legislative assembly intended the water right certificate not the permit even when followed by a beneficial use to mark the point at which a water right becomes vested (D) holding that permits only give the applicant an inchoate or contingent right to put the water to a beneficial use (E) holding that a water right is a property right created by a person appropriating unappropriated water and applying it to a beneficial use
[A]: holding that until the state issues a certificate of appropriation any right to use the water remains inchoate


[Q]: as Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Holland had been given the authority to review the allegations against Vickers and make the ultimate decision to keep her or fire her. Without more than what Vickers has offered as evidence, we cannot- see how a reasonable jury might find a retaliatory motive at work in Holland’s decision. Vickers’ retaliation claim is further undermined by the fact that even though it was Holland who fired her, Bedwell was the focus of her discrimination claims. Vickers failed to put on any evidence to show that Holland’s decision was in any way influenced by Bedwell, who had retired before Vickers’ refusal to sign the releases in April 2001 that triggered her firing. See, e.g., Griffin v. Wash. Convention Ctr., 142 F.3d 1308, 1311-12 (D.C.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Nor can Vickers’ Title VII claims draw 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a common employer and administrator does not necessarily influence the administrators decision (B) holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision (C) holding that subordinates bias is only relevant where the ultimate decision maker is not insulated from the subordinates influence (D) holding that it is the conduct required to obtain a conviction rather than the consequences resulting from the crime that is relevant (E) holding that the relevant question is whether the courts decision deprived the petitioner of his right to place before the sentencer relevant evidence in mitigation of punishment
[A]: holding that a common employer and administrator does not necessarily influence the administrators decision


[Q]: order granting Appellee Elliott’s motion for pretrial diversion and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings on Kenton Circuit Court Indictment No. 99-CR-641. All concur. 1 . KRS 533.250 — .262. 2 . KRS 533.250(1). 3 . Class D Felony Pretrial Diversion Rules for the Kenton Circuit Court (hereinafter "Kenton Circuit Court Pretrial Diversion Program”), § III(C). 4 . KRS 533.250. 5 . KRS 533.252. 6 . KRS 533.254. 7 . Hyatt v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 17 S.W.3d 121, 123 (2000). 8 . KRS 533.258(1). See also KRS 533.258(2) ("The defendant shall not be required to list this disposition on any application for employment, licensure, or otherwise unless required to do so by federal law.”); KRS 533.258(3) ("Pretrial diversion records shall not be introduced as evidence 998) (<HOLDING>). 20 .See Thomas v. Commonwealth, Ky., 95 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal for his discovery violation allegations (B) holding that an appeal is properly dismissed as moot when an appellate court lacks power to provide an effective remedy for the appellant should it find in his favor (C) holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation (D) holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law (E) holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal
[A]:
holding that an appeal is properly dismissed as moot when an appellate court lacks power to provide an effective remedy for the appellant should it find in his favor