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]: facts underlying the charges for which the defendant had been acquitted were an “integral and natural part of an account of the [defendant’s] crimef.]” The same cannot be said for the facts at issue here, which relate to a seizure that occurred on an entirely different occasion. For that reason, we do not find either Agee or Solomon directly relevant to the present controversy. As a result, we will first examine the challenged evidence in light of the principles traditionally employed in evaluating challenges to evidence admitted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b), which focus on the similarity between the prior incident and the incident that underlies the current charges against the defendant. See Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 348, 107 L. Ed. 2d 708, 717 (1990) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, the events of 10 February 2005 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that collateral estoppel component of tire double jeopardy clause did not preclude government from introducing defendants prior acquittal at trial because government was presented with lower standard of proof in the later case (B) holding that the estoppel doctrine did not apply because unlike the situation in ashe v swenson the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case (C) holding that a prior acquittal does not preclude the admission of evidence of a defendants other alleged crimes in a prosecution for the bank robbery on the basis of collateral estoppel principles because    the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case (D) holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct (E) holding that there is no need for a formal motion for a judgment of acquittal in a bench trial because the plea of not guilty asks the court for a judgment of acquittal
[EX A]: holding that collateral estoppel component of tire double jeopardy clause did not preclude government from introducing defendants prior acquittal at trial because government was presented with lower standard of proof in the later case

[EX Q]: phrase “periodical ly review and monitor the agent” is untested. Thus, the unanswered question before us is how much reviewing and monitoring is required by a trustee to satisfy the mandates of R.C. 1339.59(A)(3)? The plain meaning of the operative words are (1) review — “to go over or examine critically or deliberately” and (2) monitor — “to watch, keep track of, or check usually for a special purpose.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed.2003) 1067, 801. However, secondary legal authority on this point is scarce and wide ranging: If in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the trustee discovers conditions adversely affecting the security of the investment, it is bound to er (1987), 152 Ariz. 527, 528, 733 P.2d 1110, citing Restatement of the Law 2d, Trusts (1959) 227 (<HOLDING>); Estate of Miller (1964), 230 Cal.App.2d 888, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a trustee who lacks investment experience must seek expert advice regarding investing trust assets while exercising his own judgment (B) holding that a trust beneficiarys state law claims concerning investment of trust assets in affiliated mutual funds satisfied the in connection with a purchase or sale of security requirement of slusa (C) holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust (D) holding that although a trustee is not required to watch the ticker as a speculator would    the question of the quality of judgment in holding or disposing of trust assets    coupled with evidence of failure to review or monitor the trust estate and refusal to meet with cotrustees presents a jury question on whether or not the trustee breached his duty (E) holding that a trustee properly withheld trust payments owed to a prior trustee who had misappropriated trust funds
[EX A]: holding that a trust beneficiarys state law claims concerning investment of trust assets in affiliated mutual funds satisfied the in connection with a purchase or sale of security requirement of slusa

[EX Q]: acts under respondeat superior. 520 U.S. at 789, 117 S.Ct. 1734; see also Streit, 236 F.3d at 562. Here, however, California law places liability on the county. Cal. Gov.Code § 815.2; Streit, 236 F.3d at 562. Further, California Government Code section 25303 grants the county boards of supervisors broad fiscal and administrative powers for the management of county jails. Streit, 236 F.3d at 561. Under California Government Code section 23013, the counties also “retain the power to transfer control of a county jail from the sheriff to a county-created department of corrections.” Id. The California Code also provides that California sheriffs are elected county officers. Id. at 562 (citing Cal. Gov.Code § 24000(b); Cal. Elec.Code § 314). Sheriffs are 3d 789, 251 Cal.Rptr. 444 (1988) (<HOLDING>)). We rejected the county’s reliance on County 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that control over the local prisons is within the authority of the individual counties (B) holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud (C) recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself (D) holding authority to control limits duty to control (E) recognizing the immunity of counties unless an action is authorized by the legislature
[EX A]:
holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud