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]: state witnesses regarding their credibility during the course of the trial in chief. Angela Sweat had negotiated with state prosecution involving armed robbery charges, the facts of the plea agreement for impeachment was not permitted by the trial court. This witness was the sole evidence against the petitioner and had the jury known of her motive to lie they would have found me not guilty of the armed robbery charges. This was a denial of my right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the jury would have found me not guilty. Generally, federal courts should not review a state trial judge’s rulings with respect to the admissibility of evidence. Shaw v. Boney, 695 F.2d 528, 530 (11th Cir.1983). Even if the trial court’ h Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Evidentiary rulings are within the broad 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge (B) holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity (C) holding that denigrating insanity defense was inappropriate (D) holding that where the sole defense was insanity excluded testimony was material a crucial critical and highly significant factor (E) holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense
[EX A]: holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge

[EX Q]: two separate legal insufficiency claims. When the party without the burden of proof suffers an unfavorable finding, the challenge is one of “no evidence to support the finding.” See Creative Manufacturing, Inc. v. Unik, 726 S.W.2d 207, 210 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1987, writ ref d n.r.e.). Where the party having the burden of proof suffers an unfavorable finding (failure to find), the proper complaint is that the fact was established as “a matter of law.” See Sterner v. Marathon Oil Company, 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex.1989). Here, Tech filed a verified special denial that it received timely notice. Consequently, Lucero had the burden to plead and secure a finding on notice. See Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center v. Apodaca, 876 S.W.2d 402, 410-11 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994, writ denied)(<HOLDING>); see also Harrison v. Texas Department of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice (B) holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner (C) holding that due process is satisfied where notice is mailed to the wrong address if the appellant received actual notice (D) holding that where the governmental unit filed a verified special denial that it received timely actual notice the plaintiff had the burden to prove and secure a finding on actual notice at trial (E) holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice
[EX A]: holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice

[EX Q]: 147 F.3d 333, 338 (4th Cir.1998) (observing that a thorough examination of the evidence "should be particularly true when the Board is determining supervisory status because of the inconsistency in the Board’s application of the statutory definition and of the factors to be used in determining such application”); Spentonbush/Red Star Cos. v. NLRB, 106 F.3d 484, 492 (2d Cir.1997) (finding the "Board's biased mishandling of cases involving supervisors increasingly has called into question our obeisance to the Board's decisions in this area”); Schnuck Markets, Inc. v. NLRB, 961 F.2d 700, 704 (8th Cir.1992) ("[S]crutiny is particularly appropriate in cases where the Board determines supervisory status.”). But cf. Passavant Retirement & Health Ctr. v. NLRB, 149 F.3d 243, 246 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations and citations omitted); 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arbitrators interpretation of the scope of the issue submitted to him is entitled to the same deference accorded his interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement (B) holding that because of the boards special competence in the field of labor relations its interpretation of the act is accorded special deference and noting that whether a bargaining unit is appropriate involves a large measure of informed discretion vested in the board and is rarely to be disturbed (C) holding that an issue is a matter of substantial public importance where it involves the use of property in a large subdivision and involves the rights of a large number of people (D) holding that the courts conclusion that transfer was appropriate is to be accorded great deference (E) holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation
[EX A]:
holding that an arbitrators interpretation of the scope of the issue submitted to him is entitled to the same deference accorded his interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement