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.

[Q]: potentially to have lost contact with family, friends, or each other. But that consequence is not “serious harm” — and warning of such a consequence is not a “threat” — under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In applying the Act, we must distinguish between “Dimproper threats or coercion and permissible warnings of adverse but legitimate consequences.” United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 151 (1st Cir.2004), judgment vacated on other grounds, 545 U.S. 1101, 125 S.Ct. 2543, 162 L.Ed.2d 271 (2005); cf. Dann, 652 F.3d at 1170 (Act aims at serious trafficking and threats of dire consequences). This case involves the latter. A church is entitled to stop associating with someone who abandons it. Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc., 819 F.2d 875, 883 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). A church may also warn that it will stop 
 Holding statements: (A) holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause (B) holding that the free exercise clause protects the practice of shunning explaining that when the members of a cjhurch no longer want to associate with someone who has abandoned them those members are free under the first amendment to make that choice (C) holding that shortterm and sporadic interference with free exercise rights does not violate the first amendment (D) holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment (E) recognizing serious harm results when members of the legal profession engage in criminal acts which give rise to a lack of confidence by members of the public in those who are officers of the court
[A]: holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause


[Q]: court’s credibility determinations “unless the court credited testimony that was essentially unbelievable as a matter of law,” United States v. Smith, 308 F.3d 726, 746 (7th Cir.2002). There is no clear error in the district court’s decision to credit the presentence investigation report and Officer Morrissey’s sworn testimony over the unsworn, hearsay statement of the defendant. See United States v. Torres-Ramirez, 213 F.3d 978, 980-81 (7th Cir.2000) (‘When the sentence rests on testimony under oath ... it is enough that the judge believe the witness — unless the testimony is illogical or contradicted by documents or other physical evidence, making it clearly erroneous to accept the witness’s version of events.”); United States v. Krankel, 164 F.3d 1046, 1054-55 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Campbell directs us to no inconsistencies in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error (B) holding that where defendant did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute presentence report district court  was free to adopt facts in psi without further inquiry (C) holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report (D) holding that bald unsupported assertions by the defendant cannot refute presentence investigation report (E) holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report
[A]: holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error


[Q]: uses the term "judgment” is not dispositive. Our Supreme Court and the Superior Court have held that where a trial court issues a decision or verdict following a trial, at which evidence was presented, thereby requiring .the tyial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. based on that evidence, post-trial motions are required to bé filed' in order to preserve issues for appellate review. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Pinkerton, 574 Pa. 333, 830 A.2d 958, 962-63 (2003); Chalkey v. Roush, 569 Pa. 462, 805 A.2d 491, 495-96 (2002); Baughman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 441 Pa.Super. 83, 656 A.2d 931, 932-33 (1,995). See also Newman Development Group of Pottstown, LLC v. Genuardi's Family Markets, 617 Pa. 265, 52 A.3d 1233, 1248-49, 1251 (2012) (<HOLDING>). This is so even if a trial court's order 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that under rule 5903 posttrial motions brought before either party served notice of filing of the courts order were timely (B) holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal (C) holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions (D) holding that issues are not waived for failing to file posttrial motions from a remand proceeding where no evidence was presented because no posttrial motions were required under those circumstances (E) holding argument based on economic loss rule waived when raised for first time in posttrial motions
[A]:
holding that under rule 5903 posttrial motions brought before either party served notice of filing of the courts order were timely