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.

[Q]: Joseph F. Nascimento and his minor daughter Kendall E. Nascimento appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), of their civil rights action seeking reversal of a Montana state court decision regarding the custody of Kendall Nascimento. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal and affirm. See H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court should abstain when an exercise of jurisdiction might lead to a parallel federal regulatory review mechanism complicating state administration (B) holding that federal district courts should abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings (C) holding that courts should only abstain under younger if the state proceedings are coercive and not remedial and citing a number of district court opinions (D) recognizing that the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings generally requires federal courts to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings (E) holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law
[A]: holding that a court should abstain when an exercise of jurisdiction might lead to a parallel federal regulatory review mechanism complicating state administration


[Q]: consistent with the respective rights of the parties.” Sign and Pictorial Union Local 1175 v. NLRB, 419 F.2d 726, 731 (D.C.Cir.1969). Section 8(d) provides, however, that the obligation to bargain in good faith “does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(d). Thus, the Act does not require any party “to yield any position fairly maintained; ‘firmness of a bargaining position does not constitute bad faith.’ ” 419 F.2d at 731 (internal citation omitted). The Union argues that the Board’s finding of an impasse should nevertheless be reversed for four reasons. First, the Union alleges the Board did not conduct the sort of intensive factual inquiry it was obliged to make. See Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 N.L.R.B. 475, 478 (1967) (<HOLDING>), enforced, American Fed’n of Television & 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the excusable neglect inquiry is at bottom an equitable one that should be made by considering the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party the length of the delay and its potential impact upon judicial proceedings the reason for the delay including whether it was in the reasonable control of the movant and whether the movant acted in good faith  (B) recognizing that the primary issue to be considered in whether the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class is a determination of whether any antagonism exists between the interests of the plaintiffs and those of the remainder of the class (C) recognizing that the law of the shop includes the understanding of the parties (D) holding that whether impasse exists rests upon factintensive inquiry into the bargaining history the good faith of the negotiating parties the length of negotiations the importance of the issues about which there is disagreement and the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of negotiations (E) holding that where the parties contemplate the formal execution of a final agreement there is a strong inference that the parties  do not intend to be bound by earlier negotiations or agreements until the final terms are settled 
[A]: holding that the excusable neglect inquiry is at bottom an equitable one that should be made by considering the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party the length of the delay and its potential impact upon judicial proceedings the reason for the delay including whether it was in the reasonable control of the movant and whether the movant acted in good faith 


[Q]: motion to suppress de novo. See id. {8} The State argues that when the district court erroneously found that, because Investigator Hubbard lacked reasonable suspicion about anything pertaining to the car he had no right to run a license plate check, it equated the license plate check “with an officer stopping a car without reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.” The State asserts that this was inappropriate in that the license plate check “was neither a search nor a seizure because Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the license plate number.” We agree with the State. Although New Mexico has not explicitly addressed this issue, our case law has relied on this assumption in related eases. See, e.g., State v. Reynolds, 119 N.M. 383, 386, 890 P.2d 1315, 1318 (1995) (<HOLDING>). {9} In a similar ease involving a license 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells (B) holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells (C) holding under smith that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in telephony metadata (D) holding that individuals have no expectation of privacy in their license registration or insurance documents and citing outofstate cases that have held that individuals do not have a privacy interest in their registration records (E) holding that the constitutional protection of an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her home does not extend to a place of business
[A]:
holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells