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:
to allege damages through June 30, 2006 is the focus of their motion.”). Because the Government does not oppose Plaintiff supplementing the September 4, 2009 Complaint to seek damages through the end of 2009, the issue before the court is whether Plaintiff may supplement to allege a claim for damages incurred through December 31, 2009, or through December 31, 2010. See System Fuels, 73 Fed.Cl. at 211 (“Supplementation may be limited or curtailed to avoid prejudice.” (citation omitted)). Although Plaintiff may have given the Government an estimate of 2010 damages as early as July 2010, Plaintiff did not identify the specific 2010 damages claimed or provide the Government with supporting documentation of those damages until April 20, 2011 — t 4 Fed.Cl. 727 (2006) (“SMUD III") (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 293 Fed.Appx. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding (B) holding that smud was entitled to 39796234 in damages (C) holding that a plaintiff is entitled to either statutory treble damages or punitive damages whichever is the greater (D) holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them (E) holding that smud was entitled to mitigation damages for costs incurred from may 15 1997 to december 31 2003
answer:
holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding


question:
to those sentences because no error in the sentencing appears on the face of the record. Ninety-nine years is a “term of years not less than five years.” While Thomas’ sentences, under court interpretations of § 566.030.2, may not be authorized, we are not able to reach such issues where the sentencing defect is not so patent as to present a jurisdictional issue. This sentencing does not present a jurisdictional issue. Conclusion Thomas is ordered to be returned to the circuit court of the City of St. Louis for resentencing on the three first degree robbery counts within the limits authorized by the law. SO ORDERED. All concur. 1 . All sectional references are to Missouri Revised Statutes 1986, unless otherwise indicated. 2 . See, e.g., State v. Williams, 828 S.W.2d 894 (Mo.App.1992)(<HOLDING>); State v. Charron, 743 S.W.2d 436 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendants sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum (B) recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum (C) holding sentence of thirtyfive years in prison with ten years probation for seconddegree murder is within the statutory maximum under 1997 statutes (D) holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum (E) holding sentence of 100 years for forcible rape was in excess of statutory maximum
answer:
holding that a defendants sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum


question:
defendant claimed that the officer’s “request for permission to ‘look through’ defendant’s automobile was so vague that defendant may not have understood the extent of the search.” Id. In rejecting that argument, the court stated that: Defendant stood beside his car expressing no concern during this thorough and systematic search.... At no time did defendant attempt to retract or narrow his consent. Failure to object to the continuation of the search under these circumstances may be considered an indication that the search was within the scope of the consent. Id. (emphasis added). See also Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d at 425-26 (stating that the defendant was “cooperative during the search” and upholding a search in which police punched a hole in a car’s trunk); Lopez, 777 F.2d at 546-48 (<HOLDING>). B. Because Chaidez gave McMullin permission 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where defendant consented to search of the glove box the trunk and the remainder of his vehicle and stood by without objecting when trooper searched beneath back seat of vehicle it was reasonable to conclude that defendants acquiescence indicated that the search was within the scope of the consent (B) holding conviction for possession was supported by sufficient evidence when a firearm was found under the passenger seat where the defendant had been sitting and the arresting officer observed the defendant trying to place something in the glove compartment which when searched yielded an ammunition clip matching the gun under the seat (C) holding that the presence of a gun in a cars passenger compartment supported the possibility that the cars trunk contained ammunition additional weapons andor other contraband (D) holding that where defendant consented to search of his car and stood by as agent conducted a thorough and systematic search which included removal of vehicles back seat and raising of cars rear quarter panel defendants failure to object to search indicated search was within scope of consent (E) holding that the defendant who stood by and watched as the officers searched the vehicle consented to a search during which officers checked under a cars seat looked in the cars glove compartment and removed a speaker by unscrewing it from a panel
answer:

holding that where defendant consented to search of the glove box the trunk and the remainder of his vehicle and stood by without objecting when trooper searched beneath back seat of vehicle it was reasonable to conclude that defendants acquiescence indicated that the search was within the scope of the consent