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: defendant’s conversion by wrongful act inconsistent with the property rights of the plaintiff; and (3) damages.” In re Emery, 317 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Burlesci v. Petersen, 68 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1065, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 704 (1998)). One partner can be liable to another for conversion of partnership property. Oakdale Vill. Grp. v. Fong, 43 Cal.App.4th 539, 546, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 (1996), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Apr. 10, 1996). Further, intangible property such as corporate shares and bonds may be the proper subject of a conversion claim. See Am. Bankers Mortgage Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 75 F.3d 1401, 1411 (9th Cir.1996) (collecting California cases); see also Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp., 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 125, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 (2007) (<HOLDING>). However, more abstract intangible property, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding (B) holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss (C) holding that it is not (D) holding insufficiently definite bonus agreement that did not establish amount or method for determining amount of payment (E) holding that a businesss net operating loss is the proper subject of conversion because it is a definite recordable amount

Output: holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding


Input: Consider Input: this suit ... was a necessary incident to the attorney’s effort to establish [the defendants’ claim].” Id. Unlike Bosurgi, however, the plaintiffs allegations provide no “basis for an inference” that CARCO conferred authority on Steele to receive service. Cf. Santos v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 902 F.2d 1092,1094 (2d Cir.1990) (noting that service on defendant State Farm’s attorneys was improper where the plaintiff offered “no basis for an inference that State Farm had authorized its attorneys to accept service of process”). Accordingly, the court determines that the plaintiff has not shown that Steel was an agent of CARCO for service and that the plaintiffs service on CARCO was therefore deficient. United States v. Ziegler Bolt and Parts Co., Ill F.3d 878, 881 (Fed.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); J. and L. Parking Corp. Inc. v. United 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that even where an attorney exercises broad powers to represent a client in litigation these powers of representation alone do not create a specific authority to receive service (B) recognizing a state agencys powers are limited to 1 (C) recognizing separation of powers doctrine (D) holding that states grant of general corporate powers to hospital authorities does not include permission to use those powers anticompetitively (E) holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client

Output: recognizing a state agencys powers are limited to 1


Input: Consider Input: Cir.2008). If a defendant puts his intent and knowledge of a drug conspiracy in issue, the government can introduce evidence of a defendant’s prior similar acts to help prove its case. United States v. Banks, 706 F.3d 901, 906-07 (8th Cir.2013). Wiggins put his intent and knowledge at issue at trial, and thus, if the conviction was (1) relevant, (2) similar in kind and not too remote, (3) supported by evidence and (4) not substantially more prejudicial than probative, it was admissible under Rule 404(b). Id. Of these four, the only plausibly contested element is remoteness, but since the convictions were in 2000, and the current conspiracy conduct occurred in 2009, they are not too remote according to our precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Ironi, 525 F.3d 683, 688 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly the district court did not abuse 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible (B) holding that prior distribution and possession convictions that were eight and ten years before the charged conduct occurred were not too remote (C) holding that collateral crime that occurred twelve years prior to charged offense not too remote in time (D) holding that eight years between prior convictions and the beginning of the charged conspiracy was not too remote (E) holding that a six year span between the prior offense and the charged conduct did not render the previous conviction too remote to be relevant to the defendants intent in the case then at bar


Output: holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible