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.

even if the 1993 judgment was final and appealable, they may challenge the merits of the 1993 judgment in this appeal from the 1995 order. This appeal is untimely only if the District Court’s 1993 decision — which ordered only that ISP submit a plan to remedy the constitutional flaws in its policy — was a final judgment, appealable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We believe that the District Court’s 1993 order was no more final under § 1291 than the one at issue in Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist., 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir.1987), which held that a district court order to a school district to submit a plan to remedy an unconstitutional atmosphere of racial hostility was not an appealable final judgment. Id. at 539; see also Hendrickson v. Griggs, 856 F.2d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The November 1995 judgment is, therefore, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (B) holding that the modification or dissolution of an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding is appealable as a matter of right under  1292a1 (C) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable (D) holding injunction ordering prison to submit plan for reformation of unconstitutional prison conditions not appealable as interlocutory order under 28 usc  1292a1 (E) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable
holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable

to her or to the government, and some of which may be quite different than either thought possible. Teeter, 257 F.3d at 21; see also Sotirion v. United States, 617 F.3d 27, 38 (1st Cir. 2010). At the time of sentencing there was no “sentencing error”. Petitioner made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights, choosing the certainty of a binding plea agreement over the uncertainty of a jury trial. He cannot accept the benefit of that agreement and then repudiate it when a change in circumstances later arises. See Teeter, 257 F.3d at 21. A retroactive determination that an advisory guideline range may have been ■ miscalculated does not overcome petitioner’s appellate waiver; See Sotirion, 617 F.3d at 38; see also United States v. Calderon-Pacheco, 564 F.3d 55, 59 (1st Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). In view of the circumstances, the Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the word waiver is not required to waive a right even when a statute requires clear and unmistakable evidence of waiver (B) holding a showing of egregious facts required to vault the hurdle erected by the waiver (C) holding that the failure to provide a person with all of the information required by ors 4261001 constitutes an egregious error that justifies plain error review (D) recognizing waiver by acquiescence as a possible defense to an action for past due alimony but finding no waiver under the facts presented (E) holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case
holding that the word waiver is not required to waive a right even when a statute requires clear and unmistakable evidence of waiver

test for determining whether a hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction as “[a]n abuse of authority occurs when a decision is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law”). In his brief, Salvaggio provides a survey of cases in which courts have held that a hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction under the City of Pasadena test. In City of Pasadena, the Supreme Court held the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by summarily reversing the police officer’s suspension without accepting and hearing any evidence. Id. at 20-21 (noting the Act requires the hearing examiner to base his decision on evidence submitted during a hearing). In Kelley, the Supreme Court held the hearing examiner e 86 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). In City of Athens v. MacAvoy, the court held 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the good behavior requirement of a suspended sentence defined the period of suspension (B) holding that temporary order amounted to order modifying custody of children because language changed custody for an indefinite period (C) holding that a temporary order granting emergency relief and temporary child custody under the domestic violence act is not immediately appealable (D) holding hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by reforming indefinite suspension to temporary suspension of 92 days in excess of 15day statutory period for temporary suspensions (E) holding that police chiefs suspension letter omitting statutorily required information about process for appeal of suspension did not deprive hearing examiner of jurisdiction over suspended officers appeal and require reinstatement of officer

holding that the good behavior requirement of a suspended sentence defined the period of suspension