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 Q]: it is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”). B. Whether the FDIC Properly Determined the Amount of Deposit Insurance to Which Plaintiffs Were Entitled under the Regulations Applicable on August 8, 2008 18. The FDIC’s deposit insurance determinations are governed the regulations set forth in 12 C.F.R. Part 330. Regulations governing recognition of deposit ownership and fiduciary relationships note that, except in circumstances not relevant here, when “determining the amount of insurance available to each depositor, the FDIC shall presume that deposited funds are actually owned in the manner indicated on the deposit account records of the insured depository institution.” 12 C.F.R. § 330.5(a)(1). See also Villafane-Neriz v. F.D.I.C., 75 F.3d 727, 731 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). “Deposit account records” include “account 
 Holding statements: (A) holding affidavit statements by custodian of records based upon review of companys business records contained sufficient evidence of ownership of account (B) holding that the fdic is entitled to rely exclusively on the account records of the failed institution and that while ownership under state law is one prerequisite for insurance coverage the deposit account records are controlling (C) holding that when state law prohibited discovery of records of a medical review committee the district court should have determined whether the records came within the statutes coverage and if so whether the right of access nevertheless outweighed the public policy expressed by state law (D) holding that seventeen missing records does not constitute improper record keeping because the fact that the records are not at the station does not mean that the records are incorrect or inaccurate (E) holding that records relating to a student court were not education records
[EX A]: holding affidavit statements by custodian of records based upon review of companys business records contained sufficient evidence of ownership of account

[EX Q]: advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and the defendant subsequently gave a statement. Id. 476. The court held that the detective’s statements at the jail cell did not constitute interrogation. Id. at 479-480. The court further determined that the defendant, by stating that he wanted to tell his side of the story, “ ‘initiated’ further conversation in the ordinary dictionary sense of that word.” Id. at 480. Similarly, in Bunch v Thompson, 949 F2d 1354, 1361 (CA 4, 1991), the court held that a defendant’s statement was not the product of “police-initiated interrogation” where it followed an inquiry that “amounted to nothing more than an effort to ascertain if Bunch had changed his mind about wanting an attorney.” See also McCall v State, 501 So 2d 496, 500 (Ala Crim App, 1986) (<HOLDING>); State v Acquin, 187 Conn 647, 669-670; 448 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that police officers had probable cause to arrest a suspect where the facts suggest a fair probability that the suspect has committed a crime (B) holding that although interrogation may not continue after a suspect has requested counsel the police legitimately may inquire whether the suspect has changed his mind about speaking to them without an attorney (C) holding that fifth amendment protection against selfincrimination requires police to notify suspect of right to counsel and to cut off interrogation once suspect invokes the right absent counsel further interrogation may not occur unless suspect initiates subsequent conversation if police initiate subsequent interrogation there can be no valid waiver of counsel even though police advise suspect of his or her constitutional rights and suspect acquiesces in the interrogation (D) holding that prosecutors who soon after arrest of suspect allegedly directed police to coerce confession from suspect were not entitled to absolute immunity because interrogation is ordinarily a police activity (E) holding that once a suspect has requested counsel interrogators may not reinitiate questioning unless the attorney is present regardless of whether or not there has been an outside consultation
[EX A]: holding that police officers had probable cause to arrest a suspect where the facts suggest a fair probability that the suspect has committed a crime

[EX Q]: evidence in the record that union funds were used to create or facilitate distribution of these lists, Section 401(g) appears to be inapplicable on these facts. 21 . The majority of courts presented with this issue have similarly recognized the inflexibility of Section 402's mandate with respect to the statutory remedy for established violations of LMRDA. See Usery v. Dist. 22, United Mine Workers of America, 543 F.2d 744 (10th Cir.1976) (citing Wirtz and the “mandatoiy language” of Section 402 in reversing district court's decision not to order new elections following a finding that the defendant had violated Section 401); see also Marshall v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 486 F.Supp. 79, 85 (D.D.C.1980); Wirtz v. Local Union No. 1622, 285 F.Supp. 455, 456 (N.D.Cal.1968) (<HOLDING>); Brock v. Local 630, Int’l Brotherhood of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in light of the established violation of section 401 and the supreme courts decision in wirtz the court has no discretion as to whether or not to order new elections (B) holding that the section is unconstitutional as applied to private individuals in nonfederal elections in light of supreme court precedent (C) holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous (D) holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states (E) holding that the balancing test established by the united states supreme court was still appropriate to determine the retroactivity or nonretroactivity of a new decision
[EX A]:
holding that the section is unconstitutional as applied to private individuals in nonfederal elections in light of supreme court precedent