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 Input:
under Section 15, Article II of the Maryland Constitution. The majority’s greatest foible, however, is in its treatment of the primary issue before this Court, whether the enactment of Senate Bill 1, by which the Legislature removed the PSC Commissioners, constituted an encroachment by the Legislature on the gubernatorial powers enumerated in Sections 1, 9 and 15, Article II of the Maryland Constitution, and a violation of Section 8 of the Declaration of Rights’ separation of powers. Aristotle’s principles, explored by John Locke, and later pragmatically structured by Baron de Montesquieu, are generally credited as the mainstay of the separation of powers doctrine. Edward Rubin, The Myth of Accountability and the Anti-Administrative Impulse, 103 Mich. L.Rev.2073, 2093 n. 59 (2005) (<HOLDING>)-, Jim Rossi, Dual Constitutions and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claim premised on the organizing arming and disciplining of members of the national guard involved issue committed expressly to the political branches of government (B) recognizing that the american governments three distinct branches originate from a fusion of concepts found in aristotles the politics john lockes the second treatise of government and montesquieus the spirit of laws (C) recognizing products liability concepts as part of general maritime law (D) recognizing that when other branches of government are remiss in their constitutional duties the judiciary must act (E) recognizing that standing doctrine is fundamentally rooted in respect for the separation of powers of the independent branches of government

Ex Output:
holding that claim premised on the organizing arming and disciplining of members of the national guard involved issue committed expressly to the political branches of government


Ex Input:
agreements and do not own their software outright under Regime 1. 19 . Though this court reviews orders imposing Rule 11 sanctions for an abuse of discretion, “[a] district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law_" Giebelhaus, 938 F.2d at 964 (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2461, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)). 20 . The Court extended this reasoning in Business Guides to apply the certification requirement of Rule 11 to represented parties who sign court papers, even where they are not required to do so. 498 U.S. at 543, 546-47, 111 S.Ct. at 930-31. 21 . Giebelhaus, 938 F.2d at 965; see also Pony Express Courier Corp. of Am. v. Pony Express Delivery Serv., 872 F.2d 317, 319 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Southeastern’s argument that Lederman and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding appellant could not obtain a new trial so that jury could answer liability question because the charge instructed the jury not to answer the question based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction (B) holding that a city could not be held vicariously liable for the act of a magistrate who was immune from liability (C) holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii (D) holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable (E) holding that cocounsel who did not sign the answer could not be held liable under rule 11 for its contents

Ex Output:
holding appellant could not obtain a new trial so that jury could answer liability question because the charge instructed the jury not to answer the question based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction


Ex Input:
Zillgitt was sentenced principally to 109 months’ imprisonment. In a separate appeal docketed as No. 00-1421, Zillgitt challenges the legality, of his sentence, arguing that the jury’s general verdict, made without findings as to the type and amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy,, required that he be sentenced under 21 U .S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D), which provides the penalties for conspiring to distribute an unspecified amount of marijuana. The maximum period of imprisonment for violation of that subsection is 5 years, which is substantially less than the sentence imposed on defendant, nearly 7 years of which he has already served. In his motion for bail pending appeal, Zillgitt argues that, both under our decision in United States v. Barnes, 158 F.3d 662, 667-72 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), and under the principles recently articulated 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant can only be sentenced for misprision of felony based on drug quantities that he knew or should have known or foreseen  were involved in the conspiracy (B) holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy (C) holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case (D) holding that when a district court determines drug quantity for the purpose of sentencing a defendant convicted of participating in a drugtrafficking conspiracy the court is required to make an individualized finding as to drug amounts attributable to or foreseeable by that defendant (E) holding that in certain circumstances where a defendant is convicted of a charge alleging a conspiracy to distribute one drug or another he must be sentenced as if the conviction were only for a conspiracy involving the drug that triggers the lowest statutory sentencing range

Ex Output:

holding that a defendant can only be sentenced for misprision of felony based on drug quantities that he knew or should have known or foreseen  were involved in the conspiracy