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: CURIAM. Anthony McLemore was tried by jury and convicted of possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis. We agree with McLemore that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury his requested special instruction that an element of the crime is knowledge by the defendant that the substances possessed were marijuana and cocaine. See Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736, 746 (Fla.1996). Even though McLemore disavowed any connection whatsoever to the items, we find that the error was not harmless. See Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002)(<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse the convictions and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to give proper instruction regarding disputed element of crime charged was fundamental error requiring reversal and stating that fundamental error is not subject to harmless error review (B) holdingthat because the evidence of the defendants guilt was overwhelming the courts failure to give a requested charge on impeachment constituted harmless error (C) holding that a trial court errs when it fails to give a limiting instruction properly requested by a party (D) holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error (E) holding that failure to give a properly requested chicone instruction cannot be harmless error

SOLUTION: holding that failure to give proper instruction regarding disputed element of crime charged was fundamental error requiring reversal and stating that fundamental error is not subject to harmless error review

PROBLEM: This Court has reviewed these decisions and is in agreement with their reasoning and conclusions that the public policy exception does not give rise to a protected property interest in continued employment in this case. Likewise, the implied covenant is not the source of a protected property interest. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies to at-will employment and affords an employee the right to be dealt with fairly and in good faith. See Cantwell v. City of Boise, 146 Idaho 127, 191 P.3d 205, 213-14 (2008). Breach of the covenant may give rise to an action for wrongful termination but it does not convert at-will employment to term employment nor form the basis for a protected property interest. See Hollister v. Forsythe, 22 F.3d 950, 952-52 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Willnerd v. Sybase, Inc., No. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by all parties in the performance of a contract for the sale of real estate (B) recognizing cause of action for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in atwill employment contract (C) holding an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was insufficient to create a property interest in continued employment under montanas statutory scheme for at will employment (D) holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract (E) recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages

SOLUTION: recognizing an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by all parties in the performance of a contract for the sale of real estate

PROBLEM: INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir.1993). For relief under the CAT, an applicant must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to her country of origin. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Kupczyk bases her application for relief on three specific incidents which occurred in Poland, allegedly due to her status as a Jehovah’s Witness. First, she claims that on July 28, 1996, she was attacked by “a band of thugs” and suffered bruises and abrasions, as well as a broken nose, and had to spend three days in the hospital. She then began receiving phone calls late at n ed to offer any evidence that they are likely to be detained, let alone tortured, should they be removed to Poland or the Slovak Republic. See Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 183 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). As we cannot conclude that the evidence 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to qualify for protection under the convention against torture an alien must show that he will more likely than not be tortured in his home country if removed (B) holding that the standard for withholding of removal is a showing that it is more likely than not that a petitioner will face persecution upon her return (C) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if  removed (D) holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country (E) holding that petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return

SOLUTION:
holding that to qualify for protection under the convention against torture an alien must show that he will more likely than not be tortured in his home country if removed