TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Brown’s argument that she was speaking as a citizen is supported by the fact that ordinary citizens may similarly report public misconduct to the Auditors. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61dd (conferring right to file reports with Auditors on “any person”). The existence of a civilian analogue to Brown’s conduct strengthens her allegations that her speech was as a citizen and thus protected by the First Amendment. See Matthews I, 779 F.3d at 176. The instant case is not similar to other cases of its type that were dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage. In many of those cases, the plaintiff-employee had made an admission that the alleged speech was made, at least in part, pursuant to his or her official duties. See Matthews v. Lynch, 483 Fed.Appx. 624, 626 (2d Cir. 2012) (Matthews III) (<HOLDING>); Anemone, 629 F.3d at 116. Here, there is no 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel (B) holding that a plaintiff did not complain to the eeoc pursuant to official duties but rather as a citizen (C) holding that pursuant to garcetti plaintiffs speech made in the course of his official duties was unprotected as a matter of law (D) holding that speech was pursuant to official duties because plaintiff conceded at oral argument that as an internal affairs officer he had a broad responsibility to investigate and report police misconduct (E) holding police officer is a public official

SOLUTION: holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel

PROBLEM: judicial review of an arbitration award. See UHC Management Co., 148 F.3d at 998 (“ “We may not set an award aside simply because ... the arbitrators erred in interpreting the law or in determining the facts.’ ”) (quoting Stroh Container Co., 783 F.2d at 751). This third challenge is nonetheless partially cognizable, but only to the extent it can be read as an assertion that there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, a statutory ground under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2), as a claim of misconduct by the arbitrators in refusing to hear evidence or to provide a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, another statutory ground under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3), or as an extra-statutory challenge to the “fundamental fairness” of the proceedings. See P & P Indus., Inc., 179 F.3d at 870 (<HOLDING>). Hoffman’s fourth challenge is to the denial 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing such a ground for judicial review of arbitration awards in this circuit (B) holding right to be fundamental (C) holding that section 34810 is an adequate and independent state ground (D) recognizing plain or fundamental error (E) recognizing review for fundamental unfairness of the proceedings as an independent extrastatutory ground

SOLUTION: recognizing such a ground for judicial review of arbitration awards in this circuit

PROBLEM: the creation of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands. 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(d). 4 . "We review the denial of a suppression motion for clear error as to the underlying facts, and exercise[ ] plenary review as to the legality of the denial in the light of properly found facts.” United States v. Leveto, 540 F.3d 200, 211 n. 9 (3d Cir.2008). 5 . The taking of DNA samples following a lawful arrest constitutes a lawful search. Maryland v. King, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 1980, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013). Accordingly, if the arrest was lawful, so too was the collection of Clarke's DNA. 6 . In the alternative, it would not have been plain error for the Superior Court to conclude the arresting officers were faced with an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless arrest. See Myers, 308 F.3d at 265 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a warrantless entry by police into an apartment based on an uncorroborated anonymous 911 report of a mentally ill man  acting crazy and possibly in possession of a gun violated the fourth amendment (B) holding that 911 call reporting domestic dispute and child telling officer that a man with a gun was inside fighting with her mom constituted exigent circumstances that justified warrantless entry into home (C) holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where it seemed apparent that a burglary was in progress (D) holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where officers were faced with a call reporting burglary in progress (E) holding that officers warrantless entry was justified to assure safety of person who called 911

SOLUTION:
holding that a warrantless entry by police into an apartment based on an uncorroborated anonymous 911 report of a mentally ill man  acting crazy and possibly in possession of a gun violated the fourth amendment