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:
to two judicially cognizable interests. Id. at 560. First, the partisan-elections regime makes the process of getting on the general-election ballot more costly and time consuming. As Nix argues, courts have recognized that “[s]uch ballot-access requirements impose an ‘injury-in-faet,’ not only because non-compliance prevents ‘candidates’ from ‘appearing] on the ... ballot,’ but also because even compliance requires ‘significant amounts of time, money, personnel, and energy,’ which are limited ‘campaign resources’ that could have been ‘allocate[d]’ elsewhere.” Appellants’ Opening Br. 19-20 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851, 856-58 (7th Cir. 2000)); see also Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 738 n. 9, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Second, Nix alleges that Kinston’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search (B) holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance (C) holding that candidates had ample standing to challenge ballotaccess requirements (D) holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract (E) holding that candidates had standing to challenge requirements for appearing on the generalelection ballot as independents even though they could have chosen to run in a party primary

Ex Output:
holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search


Ex Input:
from the Fijian military,” was “robbed repeatedly,” had his temple burned by Fijian soldiers, and Fijian soldiers attacked his home and destroyed his property while his wife was home alone. See id. Significantly, the attacks were linked by the fact that they were all carried out by a common entity, as opposed to random acts of violence that this court has characterized as the “common byproduct of civil unrest and economic turmoil.” See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004). The acts described by Kumar are closer to those in Gormley. Therefore, the evidence does not compel a finding of persecution. Nor did Kumar present evidence that would compel “any reasonable adjudicator” to find that he demonstrated a likelihood of future persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061 (<HOLDING>). Because Kumar’s evidence did not compel a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals (B) holding that personal disputes do not constitute persecution (C) holding that evidence that  is consistent with acts of private violence  or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground (D) holding that while widespread violence against a protected group by private individuals and public officials may constitute persecution widespread discrimination that may include persecution of some individuals does not compel such a finding (E) holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution

Ex Output:
holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals


Ex Input:
all the pending criminal charges against him. A presentence report was again ordered and the sentencing of Fleming was continued to November 2, 1992. The State sought and was granted a continuance of this proceeding until November 25, 1992. The presentence report was filed on November 18, 1992, and on November 25, 1992, after a hearing, sentences were imposed on Fleming for each of the charged offenses and judgments of conviction were entered accordingly. To prevail at trial on his present claim for legal malpractice, Fleming would have the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Gardners’ negligent representation of him proximately caused his present incarceration for which he claims resultant damages. See, e.g., Burton v. Merrill, 612 A.2d 862, 865 (Me.1992) (<HOLDING>). Here, Fleming makes no claim that there was 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that slight evidence of fraud is sufficient to establish its existence particularly involving family transactions (B) holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship for service to be effective (C) holding that attorneys fees can be awarded only from time duty to defend arose (D) holding that to establish tort liability in a negligence action there must be a legal duty on the part of the defendant to plaintiff (E) holding that evidence must be sufficient to establish elements of professional negligence particularly causation and damages arising from attorneys claimed failure to properly defend plaintiff

Ex Output:

recognizing that slight evidence of fraud is sufficient to establish its existence particularly involving family transactions