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.

to those sentences because no error in the sentencing appears on the face of the record. Ninety-nine years is a “term of years not less than five years.” While Thomas’ sentences, under court interpretations of § 566.030.2, may not be authorized, we are not able to reach such issues where the sentencing defect is not so patent as to present a jurisdictional issue. This sentencing does not present a jurisdictional issue. Conclusion Thomas is ordered to be returned to the circuit court of the City of St. Louis for resentencing on the three first degree robbery counts within the limits authorized by the law. SO ORDERED. All concur. 1 . All sectional references are to Missouri Revised Statutes 1986, unless otherwise indicated. 2 . See, e.g., State v. Williams, 828 S.W.2d 894 (Mo.App.1992)(<HOLDING>); State v. Charron, 743 S.W.2d 436 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendants sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum (B) recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum (C) holding sentence of thirtyfive years in prison with ten years probation for seconddegree murder is within the statutory maximum under 1997 statutes (D) holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum (E) holding sentence of 100 years for forcible rape was in excess of statutory maximum
holding that a defendants sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum

Supreme Court rejected Cook’s claim of error on direct appeal, finding that the prosecutor’s comments were not directed at Cook’s decision not to testify, and that the comment about the videotape was invited by Cook’s cross-examination and argument. Cook, 821 P.2d at 741-43. The district court agreed that the comments were either comments on the state of the evidence or invited by Cook’s arguments and cross-examination. In addition, the district court found that, if there was error, it was harmless under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 631, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). Comment on the refusal to testify at trial violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (<HOLDING>). Also, a prosecutor’s comment on a defendant’s 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify (B) holding that it is improper for prosecutor to comment on accuseds postarrest silence (C) holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds silence during police custodial interrogation (D) holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds testimonial silence (E) holding that the fifth amendment  forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accuseds silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt
recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify

F.3d 518, 527 (2d Cir.2005). Although Patterson argues that it “was certainly possible” for his California conduct not to have been fraudulent, Appellant’s Br. at 25, that possibility, which appears remote, did not foreclose the district court’s conclusion of probable relevant criminality. See United States v. MacPherson, 424 F.3d at 190. Finally, the district court’s observation that it “must give [the Guidelines] some heavy weight,” Sentencing Tr. at 30 (Jan. 3, 2007), when reviewed in the context of the full sentencing transcript, raises no concern as to the district court’s proper understanding of its obligation to make an “individualized assessment” of the appropriate sentence consistent with the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. at 596-97 (<HOLDING>). The district court explicitly acknowledged 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines (B) holding that a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines (C) holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range (D) holding that district court may not presume reasonableness of guidelines sentencing range in particular case (E) holding that a court of appeals may presume reasonable a district courts proper application of the sentencing guidelines

holding a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines