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: two separate legal insufficiency claims. When the party without the burden of proof suffers an unfavorable finding, the challenge is one of “no evidence to support the finding.” See Creative Manufacturing, Inc. v. Unik, 726 S.W.2d 207, 210 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1987, writ ref d n.r.e.). Where the party having the burden of proof suffers an unfavorable finding (failure to find), the proper complaint is that the fact was established as “a matter of law.” See Sterner v. Marathon Oil Company, 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex.1989). Here, Tech filed a verified special denial that it received timely notice. Consequently, Lucero had the burden to plead and secure a finding on notice. See Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center v. Apodaca, 876 S.W.2d 402, 410-11 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994, writ denied)(<HOLDING>); see also Harrison v. Texas Department of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice (B) holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner (C) holding that due process is satisfied where notice is mailed to the wrong address if the appellant received actual notice (D) holding that where the governmental unit filed a verified special denial that it received timely actual notice the plaintiff had the burden to prove and secure a finding on actual notice at trial (E) holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice
Example Output: holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice

Example Input: protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005). The First Amendment guarantees a prisoner a right to seek redress of grievances from prison authorities and as well as a right of meaningful access to the courts. Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir.1995); see also Hasan v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 400 F.3d 1001, 1005 (7th Cir.2005) (“Prisoners’ grievances, unless frivolous ..., concerning the conditions in which they are being confined are deemed petitions for redress of grievances and thus are protected by the First Amendment.”); Wolfel v. Bates, 707 F.2d 932, 934 (6th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Jones’s complaints of 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing first amendment retaliation right (B) holding that administrative remedies are unavailable if prison officials fail to respond to prisoners grievances (C) recognizing that prisoners undoubtedly exercise first amendment petition right when filing grievances and stating that prison officials may not retaliate against prisoners for filing grievances (D) holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials (E) recognizing prisoners first amendment right to eom plain to prison officials about discrimination
Example Output: recognizing first amendment retaliation right

Example Input: changes to M.R.E.s 103(a)(2), 404(a), 701-702, and 803(6) that have already taken effect through operation of M.R.E. 1102. 3 . The First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits follow rules similar to the Ninth Circuit’s formulation in Cox. See, e.g., United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754 (1st Cir.1995); United States v. Dicker, 853 F.2d 1103, 1108-09 (3d Cir.1988); United States v. White, 569 F.2d 263, 267 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Marzano, 537 F.2d 257, 268 (7th Cir.1976); DeLoach v. United States, 307 F.2d 653, 655 (D.C.Cir.1962) (pre-Federal Rules of Evidence case); see also United States v. Coleman, 284 F.3d 892, 894 (8th Cir.2002) (upholding police officer's testimony interpreting defendant’s "drug jargon”); United States v. Peoples, 250 F.3d 630, 640-42 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The Sixth Circuit, however, maintains that a 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that although early interpretations of the act were narrow subsequent interpretations demonstrate that the act reaches a wide variety of deceptive commercial practices (B) holding that fbi agents testimony regarding witnesss pri or identification was admissible where nothing in the record suggested that the declarant was unavailable for reexamination after the agents testimony (C) holding that an fbi agents investigation of the written contents of a notebook that was lawfully in the possession of the fbi constituted a search that violated the defendants fourth amendment rights (D) holding that the plaintiffs ftca claims failed because the fbi agents were privileged to use reasonable force under texas law (E) holding that fbi agents interpretations of codefendants conversations were inadmissible under fedrevid 701
Example Output:
recognizing that although early interpretations of the act were narrow subsequent interpretations demonstrate that the act reaches a wide variety of deceptive commercial practices