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: court’s credibility determinations “unless the court credited testimony that was essentially unbelievable as a matter of law,” United States v. Smith, 308 F.3d 726, 746 (7th Cir.2002). There is no clear error in the district court’s decision to credit the presentence investigation report and Officer Morrissey’s sworn testimony over the unsworn, hearsay statement of the defendant. See United States v. Torres-Ramirez, 213 F.3d 978, 980-81 (7th Cir.2000) (‘When the sentence rests on testimony under oath ... it is enough that the judge believe the witness — unless the testimony is illogical or contradicted by documents or other physical evidence, making it clearly erroneous to accept the witness’s version of events.”); United States v. Krankel, 164 F.3d 1046, 1054-55 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Campbell directs us to no inconsistencies in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error (B) holding that where defendant did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute presentence report district court  was free to adopt facts in psi without further inquiry (C) holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report (D) holding that bald unsupported assertions by the defendant cannot refute presentence investigation report (E) holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report

Answer: holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error


Question: 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

Answer: holding that plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate some nexus between infringement and profits before apportionment can occur


Question: Upon “cause to suspect,” the WPBPD would be required to conduct an investigation. Logic would suggest it would consider the findings contained in the Final Order in reaching its conclusion as to whether Wills had failed to maintain “good moral character.” If the investigation concludes he did not maintain good moral character, Wills is subject to imposition of any of the penalties discussed above. Clearly, the modified findings contained in the FEC’s Final Order would provide a basis for future disciplinary proceedings against Wills. Consequently, although the Final Order dismissed the charges against him, he is adversely affected by the FEC’s modified findings, and has standing to institute this appeal. See Rabren v. Dep’t of Prof'l Reg., 568 So.2d 1283, 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>); c.f., Bodenstab v. Dep’t of Prof'l Reg., Bd. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding pilot had standing to appeal final order even though charges were dismissed agencys statements in conclusions of law would be used against him as precedent in later proceeding or as evidence of incipient policy (B) holding that police officers testimony as to the victims prior inconsistent statements made to him on day of the alleged crime were not admissible as substantive evidence and could not be used to support a finding of guilt (C) holding that the notice of appeal filed after the district court entered judgment as to one defendant but before the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants would have become effective when those defendants were later dismissed (D) holding that a plaintiff may bring a  1983 action alleging a violation of fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to be free from police coercion in pursuit of a confession even though statements were not used against him at trial (E) holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted

Answer:
holding that police officers testimony as to the victims prior inconsistent statements made to him on day of the alleged crime were not admissible as substantive evidence and could not be used to support a finding of guilt