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.

[EX Q]: to commit himself to such an alternative to a federal sentence. 2 . Defendant also raises two additional arguments: (1) that the district court improperly based its sentence on the defendant’s refusal to waive his constitutional and statutory rights to oppose his deportation; and (2) that the district court failed to appreciate the scope of its authority to consider, as a mitigating circumstance upon which to base a departure, defendant's vulnerability and susceptibility to abuse in prison due to his physical condition. Both arguments lack merit. As to the first argument, the conditioning of a downward departure on the surrender of a statutory right to a deportation hearing would not have offended due process. See United States v. Galvez-Falconi, 174 F.3d 255, 260 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). See generally United States v. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart (B) holding that district court had authority to grant section 5k20 downward departure despite governments opposition (C) holding that the district court was not required to state affirmatively on the record that it knew it possessed the authority to depart downward (D) holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart (E) holding that where a defendant malees a showing that the act of consenting to deportation carries unusual assistance to the administration of justice district court has authority under ussg  5k20 to depart downward in absence of the governments consent
[EX A]: recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart

[EX Q]: two for support). The fallacy of this position is that it confuses and commingles two conflicting strands of case law which follow opposing judicial routes. As noted above, in every case cited by the majority in footnote two, the fruits of a search were deemed admissible only after the search was found to be constitutional, i.e., distinctions as to admissibility of the fruits of a particular search against the consenting occupant and the nonconsenting occupant were never drawn. There is no authority for the majority’s proposition that the fruits of an unconstitutional search should be admitted into evidence. Indeed such a proposition violates one of the founding principles of the Fourth Amendment. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Most commentators also agree failure to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible (B) holding that the physical fruits of a miranda violation must be suppressed (C) holding that evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed (D) holding that regardless of the applicable framework defendants statement must be suppressed (E) holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search
[EX A]: holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible

[EX Q]: 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, or 7805), depending upon the predominant disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, DC 7806. Here, the language of Diagnostic Code 7806 is unambiguous: the diagnostic code explicitly mentions corticosteroids as an example of “systemic therapy” and does not further distinguish between different types of corticosteroid application. Otherwise stated, as used in Diagnostic Code 7806, “constant or near-constant systemic therapy such as corticosteroids .or other immunosuppressive drugs [ ] required during the past 12-month period,” defines systemic therapy as the use of corticosteroids without any limitation of type of use, and it is well settled that the Board is not permitted to add criteria not included in the rating schedule. See Drosky v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 251, 255 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Pernorio v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 625, 628 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the boards imposition of additional requirements other than those specified in the diagnostic code was impermissible (B) holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified (C) holding that the faa extends to employment cases for employees other than those engaged in transportation of goods (D) holding that appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa (E) holding that the faa extends to employment cases for employees other than those engaged in transportation
[EX A]:
holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified