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: Rodrigues hit him in the head with a hand-held radio. Defendant Rodrigues ordered Barile to tell the doctors at the hospital that he injured himself in a “fall.” Subsequently, Barile made a complaint to the Internal Affairs Division and an investigator was assigned to verify Barile’s claim. On June 11, 1997, a private attorney informed Barile that the law firm had filed a Notice of Intent to sue the City of Hartford. On April 13, 2004, the cessive force against him on December 21, 1996. Thus, Barile had until December 21, 1999, to file his complaint. When considering a ease filed by a prisoner, the courts consider a complaint to have been filed as of the date the inmate gives the complaint to prison officials to be mailed to the court. See Dory v. Ryan, 999 F.2d 679, 682 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court (B) holding that an noa filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date that the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing (C) holding that prisoners notice of appeal deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court (D) holding that the date of filing is the time at which a pro se prisoner entrusts the document to prison officials for delivery (E) holding that a pro se prisoner complaint is deemed filed as of the date the prisoner gives the complaint to prison officials to be forwarded to the court
Example Output: holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court

Example Input: the rate must make a threshold showing that the rate at issue is unreasonable. Milne, 970 F.2d at 570; Covey, 763 F.Supp. at 482-83. Relevant factors in the determination include “relevant rate comparisons, a carrier’s proffer of a particular rate, and whether the rate would have moved the traffic had it been asserted at the time the shipments took place.” Matter of Brown Transport Truckload, Inc., 144 B.R. 183, 187 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1992). One common method of making a prima facie showing of unreasonableness is to provide affidavit testimony demonstrating a significant disparity between the rates sought to be charged by the carrier and the rates charged by competing carriers at the time in question. See, e.g., Vining v. The Eureka Co., 1992 WL 370520, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 8, 1992) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Brown, 144 B.R. at 187 (noting 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo (B) holding eighty percent increase in demanded rates and showing that original rates were competitive with other carriers was prima facie unreasonable (C) holding prima facie showing of unreasonableness made by presenting evidence that tariff rates in effect at time of shipments were well above rates paid to other carriers for same service (D) holding that absence of competitive injury was not a defense to prima facie violation of  2e (E) holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
Example Output: holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo

Example Input: v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 877, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992) (plurality opinion). This court has held that, “to determine whether an actual or intended obstacle is substantial^] the court must determine whether, examining the regulation in its real-world context, the obstacle is more significant than is warranted by the State’s justifications for the regulation.” Strange III, 33 F.Supp.3d at 1330, 1337 (M.D.Ala.2014) (Thompson, J.) (internal ■ citations omitted); see also Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Van Hollen, 738 F.3d 786, 798 (7th Cir.2013) (“The feebler the medical grounds, the likelier the burden, even if slight, to be ‘undue’ in the sense of disproportionate or gratuitous.”); Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Humble, 753 F.3d 905, 914 (9th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>); but see Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, 790 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant (B) holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged (C) recognizing burden (D) holding that the burden is on the plaintiff (E) holding that the undue burden test is contextspecific and that both the severity of a burden and the strength of the states justification can vary depending on the circumstances
Example Output:
holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant