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: if a defendant’s will has been overborne, we must assess “the conduct of the law enforcement officials in creating pressure and the suspect’s capacity to resist that pressure”; “[t]he defendant’s personal characteristics as well as his prior experience with the criminal justice system are factors to be considered in determining [the defendant’s] susceptibility to police pressures.” Jackson, 562 So.2d at 1380-81 (citations omitted). The evidence does not indicate that McLeod was threatened with physical intimidation or psychological pressure. The evidence does not show that the interrogation lasted for an extraordinary length of time or that he was deprived of either food or sleep for an unexplained and prolonged time. See, e.g., Pardue v. State, 695 So.2d 199 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). Further, the evidence does not show that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a confession obtained by interrogating the defendant for approximately 78 hours was involuntary (B) holding involuntary a confession obtained by prison psychologist because the defendant reasonably understood that his communications would remain confidential (C) holding that mental coercion led to an involuntary confession (D) holding that under elstad the first question that must be answered when determining whether a subsequent confession is tainted by an earlier confession is whether the initial confession was obtained in violation of the defendants fifth amendment rights  ie whether it was involuntary  or whether the confession was voluntary but obtained in technical violation of miranda  (E) holding that impermissible police procedures rendered confession involuntary

SOLUTION: holding involuntary a confession obtained by prison psychologist because the defendant reasonably understood that his communications would remain confidential

PROBLEM: testimony, which included not just the cooperators but also the undercover agent, the government also played for the jury the taped conversations from the wiretap. In a number of these conversations, Herrera specifically discussed the drug quantities involved. Furthermore, this case does not present a situation such as the one the Supreme Court considered in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), where a conviction was overturned because there was too great a risk of evidentiary spillover, in part because there were thirty-two named participants and eight separate conspiracies. In the present matter there were only six named participants, two conspiracies and two defendants on trial. See United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 433 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Given the strength of this evidence for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant (B) holding that only one offense should have been charged when four separate packages of the same drug were found (C) recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute (D) holding that the conviction should be upheld because there was no prejudice to the defendant even though the defendant had been charged with one conspiracy and the proof at trial showed two separate conspiracies (E) holding that the jury would have no problem separating the actions of the individual defendants where there were only four defendants and two separate conspiracies

SOLUTION: holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant

PROBLEM: Celia Morales-Morales v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 418 (7th Cir.2004) is inapplicable to her case. We do not consider Maravilla-Valdez’s contention regarding the District Director’s refusal to apply the humanitarian exception to the automatic revocation of her immediate relative petition, because we already rejected this contention in a prior memorandum disposition. See Maravilla-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 90 Fed.Appx. 242 (9th Cir.2004). We lack jurisdiction to consider Maravilla-Valdez’s contention that she was never granted voluntary departure because only deportation and exclusion proceedings were available in August of 1989 and she was not placed in these proceedings, because she failed to raise this contention on appeal to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional (B) recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional (C) holding that issue exhaustion is mandatory even if not a statutory jurisdictional requirement (D) holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional (E) holding that the ftcas exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional

SOLUTION:
holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional