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.

Input: Consider Input: the statute.” 167 F.3d at 992 (citing Haun, 90 F.3d at 1100; United States v. Cavalier, 17 F.3d 90, 93 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Paramo, 998 F.2d 1212, 1217-18 (3d Cir.1993)). See also United States v. Valuck, 286 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir.2002) (reaffirming the holding in Cavalier that “the cashing of an illegally obtained check can promote the completion of an underlying unlawful act”). The Federal Express packages at issue in the money laundering counts contained checks fraudulently obtained by IDM. A rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the transfer of the checks from Barbados to New York and the negotiation of those checks promoted the underlying mail fraud scheme, and that by facilitating the negotiation of the checks Bo 88831, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 17, 1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Jackson, 935 F.2d 832, 842 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing exception to application requirement when employer does not notify employees of available promotion and does not provide formal mechanism for expressing interest in promotion (B) holding no offense of attempted seconddegree murder where statute allows conviction without proof of intent to kill (C) holding that promotion and concealment are alternative bases for a money laundering conviction proof of intent to accomplish either will suffice (D) holding that it is the fact of concealment and not the intent to conceal that is prohibited under 49 usc  1472f (E) holding that concealment is just one factor to consider and is not a mandatory element

Output: recognizing exception to application requirement when employer does not notify employees of available promotion and does not provide formal mechanism for expressing interest in promotion


Input: Consider Input: of the [Marion County] small claims court shall be taken to the superior court of the county and tried de novo." Retaining the identical language, the Legislature re-codified the statute in 2004 as Indiana Code section 33-34-3-15(a). 2 . Atlantic Coast sought interlocutory review of the trial court's order, which the Court of Appeals accepted. The Court of Appeals addressed this claim in the instant appeal. 3 . Atlantic Coast does not challenge the Court of Appeals' determination regarding the discovery order, and the Cooks do not challenge the determination that they waived appellate review of the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Delta Airlines on the Cooks' negligence claim. 4 . Compare, for example, Abdullah v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363 (3rd Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), and O'Carroll v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 863 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding federal law preempts state regulation of voip provider but expressing no opinion on applicability of state laws generally governing such companies including laws concerning taxation (B) holding that general maritime law preempts state law (C) holding that the flsa preempts certain state law claims (D) holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans (E) holding that federal law establishes the applicable standards of care in the field of aviation safety generally and thus preempts the entire field from state regulation

Output: holding federal law preempts state regulation of voip provider but expressing no opinion on applicability of state laws generally governing such companies including laws concerning taxation


Input: Consider Input: with intent to deliver. The District Court excluded Gaston’s conviction for possession of a firearm without a license but admitted all three of Gaston’s drug-related convictions. The District Court limited the government to asking about “the fact of the conviction and the date of the conviction.” In response to this ruling, Gaston requested that the court admit only one of the three drug convictions for impeachment. The District Court denied the request, holding that the convictions were relevant to Ga-ston’s credibility. On direct examination, Gaston preemptively admitted to one of the felony drug crimes. Gaston concedes that he has waived the right to object to the introduction of this crime. See Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 760, 120 S.Ct. 1851, 146 L.Ed.2d 826 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The parties dispute which of the three drug 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial courts error in not allowing defendant to testify on direct examination as to nature and circumstances of prior convictions was not harmless error where credibility of the defendant was critical to the deliberations of the jury (B) holding that a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not on appeal claim that the admission of such evidence was error (C) holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial (D) holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial (E) holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered


Output: holding that the trial courts error in not allowing defendant to testify on direct examination as to nature and circumstances of prior convictions was not harmless error where credibility of the defendant was critical to the deliberations of the jury