instruction:
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:
testimony, which included not just the cooperators but also the undercover agent, the government also played for the jury the taped conversations from the wiretap. In a number of these conversations, Herrera specifically discussed the drug quantities involved. Furthermore, this case does not present a situation such as the one the Supreme Court considered in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), where a conviction was overturned because there was too great a risk of evidentiary spillover, in part because there were thirty-two named participants and eight separate conspiracies. In the present matter there were only six named participants, two conspiracies and two defendants on trial. See United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 433 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Given the strength of this evidence for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant (B) holding that only one offense should have been charged when four separate packages of the same drug were found (C) recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute (D) holding that the conviction should be upheld because there was no prejudice to the defendant even though the defendant had been charged with one conspiracy and the proof at trial showed two separate conspiracies (E) holding that the jury would have no problem separating the actions of the individual defendants where there were only four defendants and two separate conspiracies
answer:
holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant


question:
of benefits in 1989 established a "pattern” of benefit increases such that the Plan's later rescission of the 1999 Benefits Increase, which was adopted ten years after the 1989 increase, violated the anti-cutback rule. We find this argument to be without merit as a matter of law. 18 . Thornton also alleges that the Board breached its fiduciary duty by favoring one class of Plan participants over another class, specifically by eliminating the 1999 Benefits Increase for pre-February 1, 1999 retirees while maintaining it for Plan participants retiring on or after that date. Thornton waived this argument on appeal, however, by waiting until his reply brief to address the issue, rather than raising it first in his opening brief. United States v. Perkins, 994 F.2d 1184, 1191 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 19 . 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) states in relevant 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited (B) holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived (C) holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived (D) holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this court (E) holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court
answer:
holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited


question:
district court held, following a bench trial, that Aceco was liable to Shaoxing for approximately $3.4 million for unpaid invoices, and that Aceco had failed to prove its counterclaims. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Beck Chevrolet Co. v. Gen. Motors LLC, 787 F.3d 663, 672 (2d Cir. 2015). Because this case involves a contract for the sale of goods, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by the State of New York (“NYUCC”) governs. See Integrated Circuits Unlimited v. E.F. Johnson Co., 875 F.2d 1040, 1041 (2d Cir. 1989). Under the NYUCC, “[t]he buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.” N.Y.U.C.C. § 2-607(1); see also Sobiech v. Int’l Staple & Mach. Co., 867 F.2d 778, 781 (2d Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>). “Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to  672606 (B) holding that seller was entitled to recover contract price of goods where buyer failed to make effective rejection under the ucc (C) holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract (D) holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach (E) holding buyer liable for balance of contract price of accepted goods
answer:

holding that where buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to  672606