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: agreements and do not own their software outright under Regime 1. 19 . Though this court reviews orders imposing Rule 11 sanctions for an abuse of discretion, “[a] district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law_" Giebelhaus, 938 F.2d at 964 (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2461, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)). 20 . The Court extended this reasoning in Business Guides to apply the certification requirement of Rule 11 to represented parties who sign court papers, even where they are not required to do so. 498 U.S. at 543, 546-47, 111 S.Ct. at 930-31. 21 . Giebelhaus, 938 F.2d at 965; see also Pony Express Courier Corp. of Am. v. Pony Express Delivery Serv., 872 F.2d 317, 319 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Southeastern’s argument that Lederman and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding appellant could not obtain a new trial so that jury could answer liability question because the charge instructed the jury not to answer the question based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction (B) holding that a city could not be held vicariously liable for the act of a magistrate who was immune from liability (C) holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii (D) holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable (E) holding that cocounsel who did not sign the answer could not be held liable under rule 11 for its contents

A: holding appellant could not obtain a new trial so that jury could answer liability question because the charge instructed the jury not to answer the question based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction
****
Q: acts of sexual harassment by the plaintiffs co-workers, about which defendants’ supervisors neither knew nor should have known, does not give rise to a cognizable sexual harassment claim and will not revive an otherwise stale sexual harassment claim. See Doe v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 42 F.3d 439, 446 (7th Cir.1994) (“[Because no harassment event occurring during the violation period was ever brought to the attention of [the employer] while [the plaintiff] was still employed, there is no violation during the limitation period that can serve as the anchor for the earlier conduct.”). Additionally, the plaintiff cannot rely on the continuing violations doctrine, because there is no nexus between the conduct of the coworkers in 1994 and the earlier incidents going back to 1992. See Id. (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, there being no dispute as to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate some nexus between infringement and profits before apportionment can occur (B) holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment because she failed to show she was similarly situated to coworker to whom she compared herself (C) holding that the plaintiff could not rely on the continuing violations doctrine because she had failed to demonstrate a sufficiently close nexus between alleged touching incidents by a supervisor and the later conduct of fellow employees (D) holding that a constitutional claim against nongovernment entities only lies where there is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged action of the  entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the state itself (E) holding that plaintiff cook at a nursing home had sufficiently pled requisite public policy and a close fit where she alleged she was fired for expressing concerns that a fellow employee was contaminating the area where she was preparing food

A: holding that plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate some nexus between infringement and profits before apportionment can occur
****
Q: a user of file-sharing software has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his publicly shared files because it is not an expectation of privacy that society is willing to recognize. See United States v. Samples, No. 3-08-CR-12, 2011 WL 4907315, at *5 (N.D.Tex. Sept. 15, 2011) (“Counsel had no basis for challenging the use of forensic software to download files from a peer-to-peer network because a user of file-sharing software has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his public files.”); see also United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (“Borowy’s subjective intention not to share his files did not create an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the face of such widespread public access”); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 842-45 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Perrine 518 F.3d 1196, 1205 
 Holding statements: (A) holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable (B) holding that an agents use of filesharing program to access child pornography files on the defendants computer did not constitute an illegal warrantless search because the defendant had made those files accessible to others and thus lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in files (C) holding stults had no reasonable expectation of privacy in files that the fbi retrieved from his personal computer where stults admittedly installed and used limewire to make his files accessible to others for file sharing one who gives his house keys to all of his friends who request them should not be surprised should some of them open the door without knocking (D) holding search of probationers computer by probation officers was reasonable even in absence of a search provision when conditions on probationers computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer (E) holding that where there is no evidence of shared use or common authority an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files kept on a personally owned computer

A:
holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable
****