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.

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


[Q]: to survive. See Plaintiffs’ Brief, 9-10 citing Phillips, 515 F.3d at 233 (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2) general notice pleadings standard remains intact after Twombly) Because this question goes to the very heart of the matter, it must be addressed first. To recapitulate, this Court’s April 2007 Opinion weighed the sufficiency of the “enterprise” allegations in accordance with the Third Circuit’s ruling in Seville Indus. Mach. Corp. v. Southmost Mach. Corp., 742 F.2d 786 (3d Cir.1984). See 365 B.R. at 548. Seville stated that nothing more than general notice pleading was required for pleading a RICO enterprise. Seville relied, implicitly, on the long-standing rule regarding notice pleading first enunciated in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (<HOLDING>) But two months after this Court’s April 2007 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court should not dismiss a complaint pursuant to rule 12b6 for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief  (B) holding that a pro se complaint  should not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief (C) holding that dismissal is proper only if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief (D) holding that a complaint will not be dismissed unless it appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim (E) recognizing the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief
[A]: holding that a court should not dismiss a complaint pursuant to rule 12b6 for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief 


[Q]: the idea — the lock can be used again. This loss or alteration of the combination may be a useful metaphor for damage to software and data in a computer. With damage to software, whether it be by reconfiguration or loss of instructions, the computer may become inoperable. But the hardware is not damaged. The switches continue to function to receive instructions and the data and information developed on the computer can still be preserved on the hard drive. While the loss of the idea represented by the configuration of the computer switches or the combination for the lock might amount to damage, such damage is damage to intangible property. It is not damage to the physical components of the computer or the lock, i.e., to those puters & More, 147 F.Supp.2d 1113, 1116 (W.D.Okla.2001) (<HOLDING>). The claims in the underlying actions assert 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in an insurance context that ajlone computer data cannot be touched held or sensed by the human mind it has no physical substance it is not tangible property (B) holding in 1894 that it is against the public policy of this state to allow any one who has no insurable interest to be the owner of a policy of insurance upon the life of a human being (C) holding that a municipality cannot be held liable for an official policy or custom if it has been determined that the individual defendants did not violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights (D) holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability (E) holding that it is not
[A]:
holding in 1894 that it is against the public policy of this state to allow any one who has no insurable interest to be the owner of a policy of insurance upon the life of a human being