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.

take place in federal court. The Government maintains that a facially valid certification is not subject to review by this Court and must be held sufficient. It further contends that even if the certification can be reviewed by this Court, the certification at issue here was correct. “Whether the government complied with [the juvenile delinquency certification requirements of] 18 U.S.C. § 5032 is an issue of statutory interpretation which this court reviews de novo.” United States v. Juvenile Male, 241 F.3d 684, 686 (9th Cir.2001). A certification filed in the district court by a United States Attorney is presumed to be accurate, absent circumstances calling into question its accuracy or validity. See Pasadena Research Labs., Inc. v. United States, 169 F.2d 375, 381-82 (9th Cir.1948) (<HOLDING>). A Section 5032 provides in relevant part: A 
 Holding statements: (A) holding generally the law presumes that every man in his private and official character does his duty until the contrary is proved it will presume that all things are rightly done unless the circumstances of the case overturn this presumption (B) holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence (C) holding that where a public official takes discretionary action that the official knows will directly benefit a financial interest that the official has concealed in violation of a state criminal law that official has deprived the public of his honest services under  1346 (D) recognizing a presumption of regularity that undergirds the official acts of public officers causing courts to presume that they have properly discharged their official duties (E) holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation
holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence

by substantial evidence and whether correct legal standards were applied. See Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir.1997). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quotation omitted). We may “neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency.” Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir.1991). Plaintiff argues that (1) the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ ignored medical evidence of her disability; (2) the ALJ failed to analyze plaintiffs pain properly under Luna v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 161, 162-64 (10th Cir.19 95) (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, plaintiff has not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding aljs listing of factors he considered was inadequate when court was left to speculate what specific evidence led the alj to his conclusion (B) holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion (C) holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion and thus the aljs unexplained conclusion was beyond meaningful review (D) holding the record must demonstrate that the alj considered all of the evidence and the alj must discuss  the evidence supporting his decision  the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon and significantly probative evidence he rejects (E) holding an aljs failure to adequately explain the weight given to treating sources opinions not harmless because the aljs reasoning was not sufficiently specific to make clear that the alj recognized and evaluated the treating relationships
holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion

to establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel by showing that they should have done something more or something different instead of showing that no reasonable attorney would have done what Hart and Downs did given the facts and circumstances of this particular case. At the evidentiary hearing, Taylor’s primary witness was Dr. Drob. The bulk of Drob’s testimony was that, at the time of Taylor’s trial, there was, in his opinion, evidence that he suffered from certain mental illnesses that could have been considered by the jury and the court in mitigation. Though the Court allowed Drob to express his opinion about what he considered to be mitigating, the Court is aware that such testimony would not have been permitted at Taylor’s trial. See, Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d at 1506 (<HOLDING>). Further, Dr. King testified for the State 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that expert testimony should be excluded when jury is equally competent to form an opinion about ultimate fact issue or experts testimony is within jurys common knowledge (B) holding that the court is limited in amending a verdict after discharge of the jury and cannot invade the province of the jury (C) holding that the trial court correctly refused to give the jury a peremptory instruction on the f2 mitigating circumstance when an expert testified about inconsistent diagnoses of the defendant thereby making evidence of the defendants mental or emotional disturbance    not uncontroverted (D) holding that a jury does not invade the province of the board when it determines the probability of a capital defendants future dangerousness (E) holding that no mental health expert is competent to express an opinion about whether a particular set of facts constitutes a mitigating circumstance because that would invade the province of the judge and jury

holding that expert testimony should be excluded when jury is equally competent to form an opinion about ultimate fact issue or experts testimony is within jurys common knowledge