TASK DEFINITION: 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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: testified that Gollapudi admitted that he prepared and signed the W-2 forms and that they were false. Additionally, although Gollapudi presented evidence that the withholding amounts were true based on his “gross up” method, the District Court found this theory to be without merit based on the testimony of another IRS agent who demonstrated that no withholding was actually made. Moreover, it was established that the alleged withholding was never submitted to the IRS, but rather, was maintained in Gollapudi’s corporate checking account. Furthermore, Gollapudi’s reliance on Reynolds and Borman is misguided. Both of those cases involved § 7206(1) charges for filing the wrong tax form. Reynolds, 919 F.2d at 437 (“Using the wrong form does not violate § 7206(1).”); Borman, 992 F.2d at 126 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, in Reynolds, the theory in the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that materiality is not an element of  1542 because any false statement is sufficient (B) holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement (C) holding that form 4790 is not an administrative rule but is merely incidental to the statute and regulations and therefore false statements on the form can lead to criminal prosecution (D) holding that filing of improper form is not enough to establish false statement for  72061 purposes (E) holding that a false schedule c is an integral part of a tax return and is incorporated therein by reference thus giving rise to liability under  72061

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: as here, where officers were attempting to handcuff an individual who had been resistant. See Rodriguez v. Farrell, 294 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir.2002) (finding no excessive force, and noting that an officer need not credit an arrestee’s claims of pain, especially when the arrestee is in the process of being handcuffed); Jackson v. City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 650-53 (9th Cir.2001) (finding no excessive force where plaintiff suffered a fractured finger after officer pushed plaintiff to the ground for purpose of handcuffing her despite being told of preexisting back and shoulder injuries, and where plaintiff had earlier posed a threat to officers’ safety and ability to control a crowd); Huang v. Harris County, No. 00-20806, 2001 WL 822534, at *10 (5th Cir. June 22, 2001) (<HOLDING>); Brownell v. Figel, 950 F.2d 1285, 1288, 1293 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that force was reasonable where officer broke resisting arrestees thumb by twisting her wrist in an effort to prevent her from kicking him  and place her in handcuffs (B) holding that conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive where the female plaintiffs supervisor frequently tried to get plaintiff to date him using many direct as well as indirect propositions for sex including following her into the restroom repeated attempts to touch her breasts place his hands down her pants and pull off her pants and enlisting the assistance of others to hold her while he attempted to grope her (C) holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment (D) holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim (E) holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm  escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and  placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: (4th Cir.1990). Adopting the view that the denial of certio-rari is the relevant state-court decision for our review would mean that, absent exceptional circumstances (as, for example, if the state court were shown to exercise its discretion in an unconstitutional manner), anytime the state’s highest court denied discretionary review, the petitioner would be ineligible for relief in federal court. Thus, if faithfully applied, this interpretation would entirely insulate from review many decisions of the state courts; such a result cannot be correct. Alternatively, one could instead mischar-acterize the state court’s denial of discretionary review as a summary affirmance that adopted and ratified the reasoning of the lower court. See McHone v. Polk, 392 F.3d 691, 704 n. 5 (4th Cir.2004)(<HOLDING>). Such disregard of the state court’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the state court unreasonably credited the officer when the petitioners attorney provided accurate corroboration of the petitioners version of the postarrest interview (B) holding habeas petitioners may show cause for such default in specific circumstances in states that require petitioners to raise iatc claims in initial state habeas proceedings rather than on direct appeal (C) holding that the state supreme courts summary adjudication of habeas petitioners claims left intact the reasoning of the lower court and that the state is accordingly entitled to the benefit of the more thorough treatment of petitioners strickland claims in that court (D) holding that the state courts rejection of the petitioners ineffective assistance of counsel claim was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence before the state court (E) holding that where the state court denies petitioners requests for discovery investigatory funds and a hearing the court cannot find that petitioner failed adequately to develop the facts of his claims in state court

SOLUTION:
(C)