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.

Input: Consider Input: his first issue, Samba maintains that the immigration judge placed too little weight on the length of his sentence and the assistance he provided to federal agencies in determining that the offense was a particularly serious crime. We have previously determined that such a claim, “which amount[s] to an argument that the immigration judge ‘abused [his] discretion in weighing the multiple desiderata made relevant by the [BIA’s] definition of a particularly serious crime,’ do[es] not present questions of law and therefore [is] not reviewable under section 1252(a)(2)(D).” Solorzano-Moreno v. Mukasey, 296 Fed.Appx. 391, 394 (5th Cir.2008) (third alteration in original) (quoting Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800, 802 (7th Cir.2006)); see also Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). To the extent that the first issue challenges 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a (B) holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (D) holding that the argument that the immigration judge did not consider all of the relevant factors in determining that his children would not suffer the requisite hardship was not a question of law under  1252a2d (E) holding that the family court is required to consider all relevant factors in determining alimony

Output: holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a


Input: Consider Input: was safe to operate, afforded discretion to the FAA to “make its own findings” whether the submitted documentation satisfied that requirement. Id. Likewise, as the district court noted, 49 C.F.R. § 385.17(f) is not a “check list.” J.A. at 105. It leaves it to the FMCSA to determine whether a carrier’s submission provides evidence that corrective action has been taken, and whether the agency has the resources to reach a final decision within 45 days. Such decisions, which relate to a regulatory agency’s “implementation of a mechanism for compliance review” and necessarily require “balancing the objectives sought to be obtained against such practical considerations as staffing and funding,” constitute discretionary functions themselves. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 819-20, 104 S.Ct. 2755 (<HOLDING>). Discretion thus suffuses 49 C.F.R. § 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver (B) holding that the faas alleged negligence in failing to check certain specific items in the course of certificating a specific aircraft as part of a spotcheck program involved calculated risks but fell squarely within the discretionary function exception (C) holding that actions against the faa for its alleged negligence in certificating aircraft for use in commercial aviation are barred by the discretionary function exception of the federal tort claims act id at 821 104 sct 2755 because the faas decisions as to the manner of enforcing regulations is plainly a discretionary activity id at 819 21 104 sct 2755 (D) holding that the faas application of a spotcheck system to a particular aircraft was a discretionary function (E) holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision 

Output: recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver


Input: Consider Input: ¶ 522.1 l[6][d] ("[T]he definition refers to a VCR even though many debtors had replaced this item with a DVD player by the time the definition was enacted in 2005. Given the impracticality of an exclusive list of items in a statutory provision that will inevitably become obsolete if not amended, courts may feel compelled to expand the list to include reasonable substitutes for the listed items.”). 7 . The Illustrated Oxford English Dictionary 47 (1988); see also Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 67 (2d coll, ed 1980) (defining “appliance” as "a device or machine for performing a specific task, esp. one that is worked mechanically or by electricity (stoves, irons, etc. are household appliances).”). 8 . See In re Wiford, 105 B.R. 992, 1002 (Bankr. N.D.Okla.1989) (<HOLDING>); In re Irwin, 232 B.R. 151, 153-54 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a lawn mower seems to fit reasonably well within the common meaning of the terms household good and appliances  it is a large appliance but not all that different from eg a vacuum cleaner (B) holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law (C) holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 (D) holding that the legislature intends different meanings when it uses different terms in a statute (E) holding that ambiguity exists if the meaning of contractual terms cannot be deciphered from reading the entire instrument or if the terms are reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation


Output: holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law