instruction:
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.
question:
statement during closing argument regarding his personal opinion of the defendant’s guilt was improper, but not reversible error). Where it appears that no other verdict could have been properly rendered, prosecutorial misconduct is not reversible error. Hillen v. People, 59 Colo. 280, 284, 149 P. 250, 252 (1915). In light of the overwhelming evidence presented at trial against the defendant, we conclude that the prosecutor’s improper remark during closing argument was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 985 (emphasis added); see also Harris, 888 P.2d at 268 (stating that “the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial will be considered on appeal when evaluating claims of prosecutorial misconduct”); Grandbouche v. People, 104 Colo. 175, 185, 89 P.2d 577, 581 (1939) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. People, 70 Colo. 313, 317, 201 P. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment (B) holding the rule that the singular includes the plural obviously  is not one to be applied except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute (C) holding that 1 usc  1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute (D) holding that the rule is that where the guilt of an accused is evident incidental improper action upon the part of the prosecuting officer may be overlooked (E) holding that the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material either to guilt or to punishment
answer:
holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment


question:
will “potentially eliminat[e] a substantial expenditure of time, resources, and money of the parties, their counsel, and the Court that may later be determined to have been unnecessary.” Pis.’ Br. filed Nov. 19, 2007, at 9. Because the opinion and order meets all of the requirements for certification, the court, in its discretion, grants plaintiffs’ motion to certify an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, as follows: 1. The paragraph of the ordering language on page 25 in the court’s November 9, 2007 opinion and order is amended, as follows: Defendant’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied. Because controlling questions of law are involved with respect to which there are substantial grounds for di 5) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that gross income can include interest or dividends accruing to fathers ira (B) holding that an overstatement of basis can constitute an omission from gross income within the meaning of irc  6501e1a (C) holding that trial judge has discretion to not include bonuses as part of gross income if he or she determines that the bonus income is not dependable or would place a hardship on a parent (D) holding gross receipts provision provides exception for trade or business to general meaning of gross income provided in section 61a so reporting of gross proceeds alone from sales of commodities would not prevent application of irc  6501e1a (E) holding gross receipts provision to supply exception to general definition of gross income in case of trade or business and applying irc  6501e1a to omission of income
answer:
holding that gross income can include interest or dividends accruing to fathers ira


question:
a clear duty to act; and (3) no other adequate remedy [is] available.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The Declaratory Judgment Act “does not, of itself, confer jurisdiction upon federal courts.” Stuart Weitzman, LLC v. Microcomputer Res., Inc., 542 F.3d 859, 861-62 (11th Cir.2008). It is “an enabling Act, which confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant.” Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 287, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 2143, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) (quotation marks omitted). “[T]he Act permits a party to apply to a federal court for a dec violated by the USCIS’s failure to record the approval of his application “in and about 2005-2006” also does not create jurisdiction in the district court. See Estrada v. Holder, 604 F.3d 402, 407-08 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Declaratory Judgment Act does 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the apa and the due process clause over an aliens procedural challenge to the recission of his permanent resident status because the issue was reviewable in his pending removal proceedings (B) holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending (C) holding that under permanent rules of hrira the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over claims of aliens ordered deported for crimes listed in ina and holding that district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over deportation orders of criminal aliens (D) holding that a district court did not err in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure due to his status as an alien subject to removal (E) holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings
answer:

holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending