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.
--------
Question: the evidence of Robertson’s alleged prior threat to his ex-wife as Williams rule evidence, the State cannot rely on the law of impeachment to introduce the same evidence through the back door by asking an impermissible question regarding an alleged prior crime. Finally, we address whether the admission of this collateral-crime evidence constitutes reversible error. This Court has held that the erroneous admission of irrelevant collateral crimes evidence “is presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to crime thus demon strated as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.” Castro v. State, 547 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla.1989) (quoting Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 908 (Fla.1981)); accord Czubak v. State, 570 So.2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). In this case, given the highly inflammatory 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted (B) holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder (C) holding that where court informed jurors that the defendant had escaped from custody the trial judge acted within his judicial capacity and did not testify  (D) holding collateral crime evidence that defendant was an escaped convict was presumptively harmful (E) holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime

Answer: holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted


Question: improperly removed the action as there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy fails to meet the $75,000 threshold. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of “compensatory, special and general damages in an amount according to proof at trial, but not less than $1,000,000.” (Dkt. No., Ex. A.) Plaintiff further states that the amount of the Note on the property in question is $440,000 (Id.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. The question before the Court is whether, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Wells Fargo is also a citizen of California. See, e.g., Uriarte v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127497 at *9, 2011 WL 5295285 at *2-3 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 3, 2011) (<HOLDING>). But see Flores v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2012 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count (B) holding that the location of a corporations principal place of business for diversity purposes is the state where the corporation has its headquarters or nerve center (C) holding that if a domestic corporations principal place of business is abroad the foreign principal place of business cannot be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes (D) holding that wells fargo is also a citizen of california where it has its principal place of business (E) holding that for diversity purposes a national bank is  a citizen of  the state of its principal place of business and the state listed in its organizational certificate

Answer: holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count


Question: Diggs v. Owens, 833 F.2d 439, 444-45 (3d Cir. 1987)). 20 . Doc, No, 97 (Petition) at 15. Although Petitioner states that his Certificates of Completion for these courses are attached to his Petition as "Exhibit A,” no such exhibits appear on the docket, Nonetheless, the Court takes as true' Petitioner's allegation that he has completed a number of educational courses while incarcerated. 21 . 562 U.S. 476, 481, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011). 22 . Although the Third Circuit affirmed Petitioner's convictions on Counts 1-11, Petitioner’s sentence on those counts was reduced from 360 to 235 months on resentencing. See Doc. Nos. 68, 95 (Judgment and Amended Judgment). 23 . See United States v. Renfro, Criminal No. 08-93-ART-CJS-2, 2017 WL 1416869, at *6 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 22, 2017) (<HOLDING>); McCullough v. United States, No. 12-1214, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice (B) holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice (C) holding that federal court cannot review claim procedurally defaulted in state court absent showing of either cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice (D) holding that request for resentencing based on pepper was not cognizable in a  2255 proceeding absent a showing of a complete miscarriage of justice (E) holding that pepper did not allow petitioner to seek a resentencing under  2255

Answer:
holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice