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: 879 (citations omitted). We think there is a reasonable fit here between the State’s purpose of protecting society from persons who have been determined to be likely to reoffend if not placed in a secure facility and their placement in such a facility. Therefore, Garren has failed to show a substantive due process violation. VII. Vagueness. Although Garren states in a division heading in his brief that chapter 229A is vague as applied and on its face, he makes no argument in his brief in support of the contention that the statute is vague as applied to him. We deem this issue waived. See Iowa R.App.P. 14(a)(3) (“Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite to authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”); State v. Cooley, 608 N.W.2d 9, 13-14 (Iowa 2000) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Garren is precluded from 
 Holding statements: (A) holding issue first addressed in appellants reply brief was not waived because it was in response to argument first presented in appellees brief (B) holding issue waived where matter not addressed beyond reference in heading in brief (C) holding that an issue mentioned in a brief but not addressed is waived (D) holding issues argued orally but not addressed in brief were waived (E) holding an issue listed in statement of issues on appeal but not addressed in brief is abandoned

Answer: holding issue first addressed in appellants reply brief was not waived because it was in response to argument first presented in appellees brief


Question: employee.” Lenoir v. Roll Coater, Inc., 13 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir.1994) citing Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). In this case, the Defendants state that Turner was fired because management honestly believed that Turner had directed threats towards other employees. The testimony of Gibbons, Woodward and Overstreet supports that story. The Court finds that the Defendants’ explanation has a reasonable basis in fact. The Court also finds that Turner’s alleged conduct, if true, would be sufficient to warrant discharge. There is no question that if the Defendants honestly believed that Turner actually made threats of violence, that Turner could be rightfully discharged. See Lenoir v. Roll Coater, 13 F.3d 1130, 1133 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 3. Pretext. Because the Defendants’ 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made (B) holding that if management honestly believed that the plaintiff employee possessed a weapon wielded at coworkers and made menacing comments then management had a reasonable explanation for discharging the plaintiff employee (C) holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct (D) holding that a partner in and accounting firm who brought an action under the age discrimination in employment act adea and the employee retirement income security act erisa was considered an employee because he was subject to the control of a management committee which acted in secrecy and had no bona fide ownership interest fiduciary relationship voting right or management control (E) holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice

Answer: holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made


Question: no meritorious issues for appeal. After a Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing at which Blackmon admitted his guilt and attested that his plea was knowing and voluntary, the district court sentenced Blackmon to the statutory minimum of life in prison based on prior convictions admitted to by him in his plea agreement. Because Blackmon did not dispute that he absconded for nearly three and a half years after entering his guilty plea, thereby triggering the imposition of the enhanced penalty pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, his mandatory life sentence was appropriate. See United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir.2008) (“A statutorily required sentence ... is per se reasonable.”); see also Burgess v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1572, 1577-80, 170 L.Ed.2d 478 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Although Blackmon purports to have withdrawn 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony (B) holding that a felony drug offense is an offense punishable by more than one year as defined in 21 usc  80244 2000 regardless of whether the state of conviction classified the particular offense as a misdemeanor or felony (C) holding that for purposes of applying enhanced penalty in  841b1a felony drug offense includes any crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment regardless of whether it is classified as a felony or a misdemeanor (D) holding lopez was inapplicable to the language prior conviction for a felony drug offense in 21 usc  841b1a because felony drug offense was defined in 21 usc  80244 as an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the united states or of a state (E) holding that a prior nonarizona conviction to be used as a prior felony conviction under the statute must both be for an offense that would constitute a felony in arizona and be classified as a felony in the other jurisdiction

Answer:
holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony