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]: that the people in the venire do not represent a fair and reasonable cross-section of the District of New Mexico. See United States v. Foxworth, 599 F.2d 1, 4 & n. 4 (1st Cir.1979)(stating that residents of counties, cities, and towns do not constitute a distinct, cognizable group for purposes of Sixth Amendment cross-section analysis); United States v. Test, 550 F.2d 577, 582 (10th Cir.1976)(“Mere geographical imbalance, absent evidence that an identifiable and cognizable segment of the community has been systemically excluded or underrepresented by reason of such imbalance, does not violate the statutory and constitutional requirement that the jury panel represent a ‘fair cross section’ of the community.”); United States v. Traficant, 209 F.Supp.2d 764, 780-81 (N.D.Ohio 2002)(<HOLDING>). Considering the foregoing, the Court will 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant did not prove that italianamericans are a cognizable group (B) holding that residents of a geograph ic area are not a distinct cognizable group and citing united states v test which made clear that a geographic area is not a distinct group for support (C) holding same and citing physicians multispecialty group (D) recognizing women as a distinct group (E) recognizing native americans as a distinct group
[A]: holding that the defendant did not prove that italianamericans are a cognizable group


[Q]: proceeding”). Here, the only evidence that th .Crim.App.2000) (stating, in motion to suppress context, “[T]he judge may believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness’s testimony, even if that testimony is not controverted”). Appellant’s and Sanchez’s after-the-fact, out-of-court averrals about appellant’s ability to understand the proceedings and waivers he signed were untimely factual statements in appellant’s self-interest. Even though the State did not offer affidavits to controvert appellant’s and Sanchez’s affidavits, it was within the trial court’s discretion to disbelieve the assertions contained in those affidavits that appellant does not read or speak English. See Charles, 146 S.W.3d at 210; Shanklin, 190 S.W.3d at 167; see also Phuong Anh Thi Le, 300 S.W.3d at 327 (<HOLDING>). The trial court, and not this Court, is in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record (B) holding that in reviewing trial courts ruling on habeas corpus petition reviewing court must defer to all of trial courts implied factual findings supported by record (C) recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous (D) holding that as long as the findings are supported by substantial evidence the board must defer to the hearing committees credibility determinations because they are subsidiary findings of basic facts (E) holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record
[A]: holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record


[Q]: that Officer Pritchard “knew the area of Chandler and Amanda Place to be a well known drug location with a high drug activity.” Thus, given the trial court’s finding that Officer Pritchard “knew the area of Chandler and Amanda Place to be a well known drug location with a high drag activity,” the first basis upon which the dissent attempts to distinguish Butler is not persuasive. Secondly, the dissent points out that, “as to the alleged transaction, Officer Pritchard did not see any exchange.” Although the dissent suggests that this factor, along with others, serves to “render Butler inapplicable to this appeal,” we do not agree. The existence of evidence tending to suggest, as the trial court found, that a hand-to-hand drag transaction had occurred in 5 S.E.2d 782, 785 (1992) (<HOLDING>). However, the trial court’s findings disclose 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that reasonable suspicion justifies an investigatory detention (B) holding that an officers diligent pursuit of an investigation during the detention is a factor in determining the reasonableness of an investigatory stop (C) holding that the fact the defendant matched an anonymous tips description was seen in a high crime area and walked away when police approached was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion (D) holding that the fact that defendant was standing in an open area between two apartment buildings and walked away upon the approach of law enforcement officers did not justify an investigatory detention (E) holding that information that a suspicious person wearing baggy clothes had been seen in a drugridden area and that he walked away upon the approach of law enforcement officers did not suffice to support an investigatory detention
[A]:
holding that reasonable suspicion justifies an investigatory detention