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 Input:
is clear.” Investment Company Institute, 891 F.Supp.2d at 205. The appellants also assert that the agency improperly counted hypothetical benefits, but this assertion is incorrect. It was appropriate for CFTC to count the benefits flowing from its registration and disclosure requirements in § 4.5 and § 4.27, as the specifics of those requirements are finalized and not subject to the harmonization rule. The appellants further complain that CFTC failed to put a precise number on the benefit of data collection in preventing future financial crises. But the law does not require agencies to measure the immeasurable. CFTC’s discussion of unquantifiable benefits fulfills its statutory obligation to consider and evaluate potential costs and benefits. See Fox, 556 U.S. at 519, 129 S.Ct. 1800 (<HOLDING>). Where Congress has required “rigorous, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies (B) holding that new york city agencies cannot be sued (C) holding that agencies are not required to adduce empirical data that cannot be obtained (D) holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment (E) recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence

Ex Output:
holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies


Ex Input:
initially stopping the truck for failing to illuminate the rear license plate in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1706(e). See United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir.1998) (“An initial traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment ... if the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring.” (citing United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783, 787 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc))). Wilson also does not dispute that the smell of alcohol on VanHouden together with VanHouden’s admission that he had been drinking justified the further detention of the truck and its occupants in order for Deputy Watkins to conduct field sobriety tests on VanHouden. See United States v. Neumann, 183 F.3d 753, 756 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Rogala v. Dist. of Columbia, 161 F.3d 44, 52 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that reasonable suspicion standard applies to routine traffic stops (B) holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law (C) holding that the discovery of 2000 in cash during a traffic stop supported a finding of reasonable suspicion (D) holding that an officers reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop under the fourth amendment (E) holding detection of alcohol on a drivers breath during a routine traffic stop gave rise to reasonable suspicion

Ex Output:
holding that reasonable suspicion standard applies to routine traffic stops


Ex Input:
the top of the trailer, where there was a danger that the employee would fall into the trailer. In fact, it appears that the only person to ever see a Cagles employee on the trailer, Hankinson, was assured that an employee should not be on the trailer; he never saw another employee on the trailer. Warren argues that the OSHA citations indicate that the coemployees should have known that, to a substantial certainty, injury or death would result from the top-loading procedure. The citation concerning the failure to guard the openings on the trailer was not a repeat citation, so the coemployees could not have had any advance notice of the likelihood of injury before the issuance of that citation. See Ex parte Martin, 733 So.2d 392, 396 (Ala. 1999). Although some of the citations ari 1991) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that Warren’s evidence 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs (B) holding that immunity is not waived for injury or death caused by negligent supervision (C) holding postaccident citation not sufficient to support finding that coemployee was substantially certain that injury or death would occur (D) holding that order finding that injury arose out of and in the course of the employment and awarding medical benefits was interlocutory order that would not support appeal (E) holding that preaccident citation would not support a finding that coemployees were substantially certain that injury or death would occur

Ex Output:

holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs