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: such equitable relief as may be appropriate. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1). A. Serious Health Condition Wells Fargo first argues that Vincent did not suffer a “serious health condition” as that term is defined by the FMLA. The parties agree that the Court should examine the regulations implementing the FMLA in order to determine whether Vincent suffered from a serious health condition. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the interim regulations or the final regulations, which became effective on April 6, 1995, should be used by the Court in arriving at its determination. The Court finds that the interim regulations which were in effect in January of 1995, the time of Vincent’s termination, govern this action. See Gay v. Gilman Paper Company, 125 F.3d 1432, 1434 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Having resolved the dispute as to which set 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it (B) holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue (C) holding that the interim regulations governed a dispute in which the serious health condition and subsequent termination occurred prior to april 6 1995 the effective date of the final regulations (D) holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997 (E) holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996
Example Output: holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it

Example Input: opposing party’s motion. We have held that there is an “overarching liberal policy of allowing amendments under Rule 15.” Ex parte Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 858 So.2d 950, 954 (Ala.2003). However, Rule 15 “‘is not carte blanche authority to amend ... at any time.’ ” Burkett v. American Gen. Fin., Inc., 607 So.2d 138, 141 (Ala.1992)(quoting Stallings v. Angelica Uniform Co., 388 So.2d 942, 947 (Ala.1980)). The trial court has discretion to deny an amendment for good cause. Ex parte GRE Ins. Group, 822 So.2d 388, 390 (Ala.2001); Stallings, 388 So.2d at 947. The deadline in the scheduling order does not curtail the trial court’s discretion in considering the merits of the offered amendment. See Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1066 (8th Cir.2005)(<HOLDING>). The trial court can refuse to allow an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act (B) holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict (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 in part that the presumption of public access attaches to pretrialnondiscovery motions whether preliminary or dispositive and the materials briefs and documents filed with the court in support of or in opposition to such motions but not to pretrial discovery motions (E) holding that the scheduling order merely prescribes the date by which all motions to amend shall be filed the date on the scheduling order does not confine the district courts consideration of the merits of such motions and does not preclude it from finding that an amendment would result in prejudice
Example Output: holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act

Example Input: Assembly amended the statute in 2015. See Ga. L. 2015, pp. 1050, 1051, § 1. 24 Haas v. State, 146 Ga. App. 729, 732 (5) (247 SE2d 507) (1978) (citation omitted). 25 See Alexander v. State, 294 Ga. 345, 348 (3) (751 SE2d 408) (2013). 26 Marryott v. State, 263 Ga.App. 65, 69 (5) (587 SE2d 217) (2003) (citation and punctuation omitted). 27 See Marryott, 263 Ga. App. at 69 (5) (a jury charge must be adjusted to the evidence presented). 28 See State v. Alvarez, 299 Ga. 213, 214-215 (1) (790 SE2d 66) (2016) (The Court affirmed the grant of a new trial based on plain error in the court’s failure to give a requested jury instruction on the defendant’s sole defense, justification, which was supported by evidence at trial.). 29 See Brown v. State, 289 Ga. 259, 260-261 (2) (710 SE2d 751) (2011) (<HOLDING>). 30 Notably, Reid does not contend that any 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt (B) holding that any error in admission of demonstrative aid was harmless because evidence of defendants guilt was overwhelming (C) holdingthat because the evidence of the defendants guilt was overwhelming the courts failure to give a requested charge on impeachment constituted harmless error (D) holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (E) holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt
Example Output:
holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt