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.

Example Input: in some respect. To me, such an approach invites municipal officials to substitute rank speculation and conjectural claptrap for genuine engineering expertise and constitutes an open invitation for local planners to engage in incompetent fear-mongering about perceived or imagined development risks, no matter how unfounded, unlikely, or controllable such risks may be. Such an open-textured standard for upholding the denial of subdivision applications will all too easily be converted into an impermeable cloak to cover confiscatory regulatory takings, official pandering to neighbors’ antidevelopment biases, political shenanigans, and other such local governmental capriciousness of the sort that we recently condemned in L.A. Ray Realty v. Town Council of Cumberland, 698 A.2d 202 (R.I.1997) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the mere fact that the municipality 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 (B) holding that person in 42 usc  1983 does not include states (C) holding that 42 usc  1983 does not provide a remedy for flsa violations (D) holding that the petitioner property owners had established 42 usc  1983 substantive and procedural dueprocess violations against town officials who arbitrarily denied the plaintiffs request for subdivision approval (E) holding that plaintiffs had claim under 42 usc  1983 against state where state had created an intermediate care facility but placed plaintiffs on waiting list
Example Output: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983

Example Input: is clear.” Investment Company Institute, 891 F.Supp.2d at 205. The appellants also assert that the agency improperly counted hypothetical benefits, but this assertion is incorrect. It was appropriate for CFTC to count the benefits flowing from its registration and disclosure requirements in § 4.5 and § 4.27, as the specifics of those requirements are finalized and not subject to the harmonization rule. The appellants further complain that CFTC failed to put a precise number on the benefit of data collection in preventing future financial crises. But the law does not require agencies to measure the immeasurable. CFTC’s discussion of unquantifiable benefits fulfills its statutory obligation to consider and evaluate potential costs and benefits. See Fox, 556 U.S. at 519, 129 S.Ct. 1800 (<HOLDING>). Where Congress has required “rigorous, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies (B) holding that new york city agencies cannot be sued (C) holding that agencies are not required to adduce empirical data that cannot be obtained (D) holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment (E) recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence
Example Output: holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies

Example Input: we find that the district court erred by commencing its evaluation of the assignment by applying a presumption of collusion against Ambrosia. Hi. While other Circuits have reasoned that a presumption of collusion is appropriate when certain closely-related entities assign claims amongst themselves, there is no such binding precedent in this Circuit. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Eleventh Circuit has held that in cases where diversity jurisdiction is premised on the assignment of claims from a subsidiary to a parent corporation, a presumption of collusion is triggered. However, both the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit have opined on the general topic of parties collusively obtaining federal diversity jurisdiction. As discusse dy Petersen Co., 546 F.2d 1227 (5th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). However, in Kramer, the Court explicitly 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the county was an indispensable party to an action between two private parties in which the public status of a roadway was in question (B) holding that jurisdiction was collusively obtained when the plaintiff made a private side agreement that promised a portion of the litigation proceeds to potential plaintiffs so long as they did not intervene and destroy diversity between the parties (C) recognizing that a narrow reading of missouri would suggest that the state is the real party in interest for diversity purposes only when the relief sought inures to the benefit of the state alone but noting that cases have only required a real interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the litigation (D) holding diversity jurisdiction was collusively obtained because the transferor retained a onehalf interest in the outcome of the litigation and was an indispensable party but for the assignment (E) holding that because there was complete diversity when the action commenced diversity jurisdiction was not defeated by the addition of a nondiverse plaintiff which was not indispensable
Example Output:
holding that the county was an indispensable party to an action between two private parties in which the public status of a roadway was in question