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: complaint nor any facts relating to VBCJ’s General Order support an argument that Waters received less procedural due process than what is constitutionally required in the circumstances. Therefore, VBCJ’s fee program does not violate Waters’ right to procedural due process. C. Legitimate Penological Interest Finally, Waters’ complaint, broadly construed, alleges that Virginia’s one dollar per day room and board fee is not reasonably related to any legitimate penological interest. This claim also plainly fails, as there are several conceivable rationales to support the finding that VBCJ’s fee program is “ ‘reasonably related’ to promoting a legitimate penological interest.” Sample v. Angelone, 173 F.3d 425 (Table), 1999 WL 52347, *1 (4th Cir. Feb.5 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Section 53.1-131.3 provides as follows: 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person (B) holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs (C) holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (D) holding that deliberate indifference standard for imposing supervisory liability based on an eighth amendment violation is consistent with iqbal and collecting cases (E) holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation

SOLUTION: holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person

PROBLEM: unlawful harm under that public policy may include actions that violate recognized and accepted standards of conduct, such as applicable codes of ethics. The critical question in this case is whether under all of the surrounding circumstances MacDougall’s termination by Weiehert violated that clear mandate of public policy and was in retaliation for either his vote on the municipal parking ban ordinance or his refusal to change the ordinance. At the outset, we recognize that conduct that is directed against constitutionally-protected activity may violate a clear mandate of public policy, even though it may not offend any other statutory or legal standard. Supra at 390, 393, 677 A.2d at 167, 168. Compare Shovelin v. Central New Mexico Elec. Coop., Inc., 115 N.M. 293, 850 P.2d 996 (1993) (<HOLDING>) with Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy (B) recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees (C) holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern (D) recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim (E) holding that the discharge of an employee hospitalized for illness did not violate public policy

SOLUTION: recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees

PROBLEM: impact’ upon the duration of his custody.” Bourke v. Hawk-Sawyer, 269 F.3d 1072, 1074 (D.C.Cir.2001) (quoting Razzoli v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 230 F.3d 371, 373 (D.C.Cir.2000)) (“habeas is indeed exclusive even when a non-habeas claim would have a merely probabilistic impact on the duration of custody.”). In Razzoli, the Circuit Court held that a prisoner could not assert a claim under the Privacy Act because his only recourse was to seek relief through a habeas petition. 230 F.3d at 376. As in this case, the prisoner’s Privacy Act claim in Razzoli alleged that the Bureau of Prisons and the Parole Commission had “violated 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) by maintaining in their files and using a false record, [a] report of [a] drug possession incident, even though the .C.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). In this case, as in Razzoli and Bourke, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release (B) holding that where the capital defendants future dangerousness is at issue and state law prohibits the defendants release on parole due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible (C) holding that federal prisoners claim was properly filed as an action for habeas although he was not laying claim to an immediate release or release in the near future he is however maintaining that he is being deprived of the chance to secure his release  by unlawfully being declared ineligible for parole consideration (D) holding that habeas petition challenging the state boards decision to defer his scheduled parole release date was rendered moot by prisoners release from custody on parole and subsequent incarceration for violating his parole (E) holding that release discharges only persons named in or sufficiently described by terms of release

SOLUTION:
holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release