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.

Ex Input:
[u]nder [28 U.S.C.] § 2254(d)(l)’s ‘unreasonable application’ clause, ... a federal habeas [corpus] court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable. Id. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Applying these standards to the present case, the court’s inquiry must be whether the uit Court of Appeals case for the proposition that the application of a statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms does not violate the ex post facto clause because it is a protective measure and does not impose any new or different punishment. See United States v. O’Neal (“O’Neal”), 180 F.3d 115, 124-25 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (criticizing Davis). Additionally, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state statutory bans against employment of convicted felons in certain jobs did not impose punishment under ex post facto clause (B) holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause (C) holding north carolina felony firearms act did not violate the ex post facto clause because it was a measured public safety provision and its applicability to previously convicted felons was eminently reasonable (D) holding that the ex post facto clause did not apply because the civil contempt citation was not punitive (E) holding that the alaska sex offender registration act did not violate the ex post facto clause

Ex Output:
holding that state statutory bans against employment of convicted felons in certain jobs did not impose punishment under ex post facto clause


Ex Input:
with ever since his age of 13 and believes that this criminal record and his continued violation of the law does require a sentence at the top of the guideline range.” Id. at 8. I. A. Commerce Clause Challenge to Section 922(g)(1) Williams first challenges the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute as it applies to his possession of the Smith and Wesson revolver. Williams posits that because he possessed the gun solely within the State of Wisconsin, and because the record reveals no substantial connection between his possession of the gun and interstate commerce, Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause, see U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, to reach his possession of the gun. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Williams did not make this argument below, so 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the gunfree school zone act exceeds congresss authority to regulate commerce (B) holding that statute which prohibited gun possession near a school zone exceeded congresss authority under the commerce clause because the statute did not regulate activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce (C) holding that enactment of  13981 exceeded congressional authority under either the commerce clause or section 5 of the fourteenth amendment (D) holding that gunfree school zones act of 1990 which proscribed possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school exceeded congressional authority under commerce clause because it reached conduct that did not substantially affect or have a meaningful connection with interstate commerce (E) holding that the gunfree school zones act exceeds congress power under the commerce clause

Ex Output:
holding that the gunfree school zone act exceeds congresss authority to regulate commerce


Ex Input:
persons for damages that result because of an injury to the corporation unless a special injury exists in the form of either: (1) a special duty, such as a contractual duty, between the defendant and the shareholder; or (2) an injury separate and distinct from that suffered by other shareholders. Healthsource, Inc., 2005-NMCA-097, ¶ 25, 138 N.M. 70, 116 P.3d 861; Marchman, 120 N.M. at 81-82, 898 P.2d at 716-17. {14} Defendants argue that Marchman and Healthsource, Inc. are controlling and that Plaintiff lacks standing because neither exception applies. Furthermore, Defendants argue that, to the extent Plaintiff alleges mismanagement or negligence, these claims may also be asserted only derivatively. See Schwartzman v. Schwartzman Packing Co., 99 N.M. 436, 441, 659 P.2d 888, 893 (1983) (<HOLDING>). The district court agreed, and dismissed 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing privilege for corporate officers directors and shareholders to influence the actions of their corporation (B) holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation (C) holding that the trust fund and denuding theories of recovery were considered to belong to the debtor corporation because each action was created for the benefit of the corporation ie to vindicate injury to the corporation caused by improper actions by control persons (D) holding that a corporate plaintiffs claims must be dismissed on the ground of failure of any attorney to appear for the corporation (E) holding that claims against corporate officers for mismanagement belong to the corporation

Ex Output:

recognizing privilege for corporate officers directors and shareholders to influence the actions of their corporation