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 for support). The fallacy of this position is that it confuses and commingles two conflicting strands of case law which follow opposing judicial routes. As noted above, in every case cited by the majority in footnote two, the fruits of a search were deemed admissible only after the search was found to be constitutional, i.e., distinctions as to admissibility of the fruits of a particular search against the consenting occupant and the nonconsenting occupant were never drawn. There is no authority for the majority’s proposition that the fruits of an unconstitutional search should be admitted into evidence. Indeed such a proposition violates one of the founding principles of the Fourth Amendment. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Most commentators also agree failure to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible (B) holding that the physical fruits of a miranda violation must be suppressed (C) holding that evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed (D) holding that regardless of the applicable framework defendants statement must be suppressed (E) holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search
Example Output: holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible

Example Input: the information provided in the Unplanned Deviation Reports and investigation reports was an accurate depiction of the incidents occurred, and Acevedo has not shown otherwise. Lastly, this Court notes that Ceinos rated Acevedo in 2005 as “Fully Met Expectations,” which evinces a lack of animus towards Acevedo, insofar as he was accorded positive review by Ceinos despite previous performance issues. In essence, Plaintiffs ask us to excuse Acevedo’s performance by replacing Ceinos’ business judgment with his own absent proof that his employer’s findings were inaccurate or misleading, which is an untenable position in light of the applicable case law. Velazquez-Fernandez v. NCE Foods, Inc., 476 F.3d 6, 12 (1st Cir.2007) (citing Webber v. Int’l Paper Co., 417 F.3d 229, 238 (1st Cir.2005)) (<HOLDING>). Ex-Lax’s hiring practices, disciplinary 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment (B) holding that an employees opinion of the efficacy of an employment decision standing alone cannot supplant the employers business judgment (C) holding that employers have standing to sue (D) holding employer cannot lawfully make the signing of an employment agreement which contains an unenforceable covenant not to compete a condition of continued employment an employers termination of an employee who refuses to sign such an agreement constitutes a wrongful termination in violation of public policy (E) holding that an employers sponsorship of an employees 01 visa does not establish an employment contract for a definite term
Example Output: holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment

Example Input: parties, Herman v. Herman, 335 Ark. 36, 977 S.W.2d 209 (1998), and the burden of showing a change in circumstances is always upon the party seeking the change in the amount of alimony. (Emphasis added.) Weeks v. Wilson, 95 Ark. App. 88, 234 S,W.3d 333 (2006) (citing Hass v. Hass, 80 Ark. App. 408, 97 S.W.3d 424 (2003)). The majority opinion specifically states that, “There is no evidence in the record to suggest that appellee needed alimony then or that she needs alimony now.” (Emphasis added.) Apparently, the majority is attempting to go behind the order to determine whether or not the trial court erred in its first award of alimony. There is no authority for that proposition, and the premise is untenable. See Taylor, supra (citing Lively v. Lively, 222 Ark. 501, 261 S.W.2d 409 (1953) (<HOLDING>)). This last distinct flaw, the shifting of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the statutory grounds for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards may not be supplemented by contract (B) holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified (C) holding that prison term following revocation of probation is a modification and part of the actual sentence imposed for the original offense (D) holding that the liberality of the original allowance cannot afford grounds for modification (E) holding that notice must state the specific grounds for the departure
Example Output:
holding that the statutory grounds for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards may not be supplemented by contract