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.

Input: Consider Input: speech." The categorical distinction is particularly difficult to apply to statutes that proscribe threats. Generally, threats involve words, or "speech.” Moreover, in the R.A.V. case itself, the Court implicitly suggested that threats did not fall within its exception for statutes "directed at conduct.” See R.A.V., — U.S. at --, 112 S.Ct. at 2546 (describing 18 U.S.C. § 871, which proscribes threats against the President, as fully subject to its general rule). Nonetheless, as I discuss below, at least one panel in this circuit has held that a civil rights statute selectively proscribing threats of force is “directed at conduct” and thus not subject to the R.A.V. general rule. Hayward, 6 F.3d at 1251 (42 U.S.C. § 3631, as applied to a cross-burning incident); cf. J.H.H., 22 F.3d at 826 (<HOLDING>); but cf. United States v. Lee, 6 F.3d 1297, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc  241 (B) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 (C) holding that 18 usc  245 a statute passed on the same day as 42 usc  3631 and for similar purposes constituted a valid enactment under congress thirteenth amendment authority as applied to racially motivated interference with federallyprotected rights (D) holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 (E) holding that 18 usc  241 and 42 usc  3631 fall within a separate exception to rav

Output: holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc  241


Input: Consider Input: situation he confronted.’ ” Id. at 367 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)). Particularly, the contours of De Boise’s right to be free from excessive force must be so sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would know that the multiple tasings under the circumstances were a violation of that right. See Roberts v. City of Omaha, 723 F.3d 966, 972 (8th Cir.2013). Although we have determined that non-violent, non-fleeing subjects have a clearly established right to be free from the use of tasers, see Brown, 574 F.3d at 499-500, we have yet to determine whether a violent subject, acting aggressively toward officers, has a clearly established right to be free from multiple tasings. See Clark v. Ware, 873 F.Supp.2d 1117, 1123 (E.D.Mo.2012) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, in 2008, case law related to the use 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court could not determine as a matter of law that the repeated use of a taser on a subject that was physically resisting the police violated a clearly established right as of november 2009 (B) holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established (C) holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established (D) holding that clearly established law is construed as supreme court or tenth circuit decisions on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts (E) holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine

Output: holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established


Input: Consider Input: Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the entire $5,830,000 underlying judgment in this bad faith action. Plaintiffs here are only entitled to $5,730,000—the principal amount of the judgment that exceeds the $100,000 policy limits subsequently paid by Nationwide. The parties disagreed over whether, under Georgia law (as opposed to Nationwide’s policy language discussed above at page 41-45), Nationwide’s partial payment of its $100,000 policy limits should be credited to the principal amount of the underlying judgment for purposes of calculating post-judgment interest. Under O.C.G.A. § 7-4-17, “[w]hen a payment is made upon any debt, it shall be applied first to the discharge of any interest due at the time.” Threatt v. Forsyth County, 262 Ga.App. 186, 585 S.E.2d 159, 163 (2003) (<HOLDING>). On February 23, 2011, the date Nationwide 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that we will not review the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and judgment on the merits (B) holding that for the purpose of applying ocga  7417 judgments are debts and parties to litigation can be judgment debtors or creditors and that ocga  7417 controls how payments for less than the full amount of a judgment should be allocated between principal and interest (C) recognizing that a final judgment may exist even where no judgment has been entered in accordance with ocga  91158 b (D) holding that where payment toward judgment was for less than the total amount of principal and interest  owed that payment then did not terminate the accrual of interest on the remaining principal (E) holding that a second judgment controls over an earlier judgment entered in the same case


Output: holding that we will not review the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and judgment on the merits