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.

Q: hearing are binding on the appellate courts if supported by competent evidence. State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 140, 446 S.E.2d 579, 585 (1994). A trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Kincaid, 147 N.C. App. 94, 97, 555 S.E.2d 294, 297 (2001). In the present case, the trial court made the following relevant findings of fact: that on or about July 6, 2004 . . . Officer Henderson, a 27 year veteran of the Burlington Police Dept, had received a call of a suspicious activity at Coy’s Exxon on the comer of Graham-Hopedale Rd. and N. Church St. That location has had numerous calls for shopliftingy fights[,] and other activity. Also there is numerous gang and graffiti act S.E.2d 412, 418 (2004), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 283, 610 S.E.2d 208 (2005) (<HOLDING>). The State argues “ [i]t is clear from the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to support an investigatory stop of a vehicle where the defendant and driver were observed loitering at a closed shopping center shortly before midnight no other vehicles were in the parking lot and the two men abruptly and hurriedly returned to their vehicle which was parked out of general public view (B) holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes (C) holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when confidential informant personally observed the vehicle provided a description of the vehicle and its direction detailed the basis for her suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in illegal activity and had previously given reliable information that led to the successful apprehension of individuals engaged in various criminal activity (D) holding reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to support the investigatory stop of a vehicle in view of the time of day and the officers prior knowledge of reports of criminal activity in the area (E) holding that a mere parking violation justified the investigatory stop of choudrys vehicle

A: holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes
****
Q: a factor listed in this subpart, departure from the applicable guideline range is warranted only if the factor is present to a degree substantially in excess of that which ordinarily is involved in the offense. U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, p.s. Indeed, we have recognized the possibility of departure beyond the adjustments made available by U.S.S.G. §§ 3B1.1 (aggravating role) and 3B1.2 (mitigating role), based upon a defendant’s extraordinary role with respect to the offense of conviction. See United States v. Joyner, 924 F.2d 454, 461 (2d Cir.1991) (acknowledging possibility of role “so extraordinarily minute that [defendants] deserved a departure beyond the four-level maximum reduction available for ‘minimal’ participation”); United States v. Colon, 905 F.2d 580, 585-86 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Bierley, 922 F.2d 1061, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that where there are other persons who are criminally responsible for the offense who have not been apprehended or have not been charged due to cooperation a sole defendant may be eligible for an upward or downward adjustment for role in the offense (B) holding that within these parameters apprendi permits an upward adjustment for a defendants role in a drugtrafficking conspiracy (C) recognizing potential upward adjustment beyond that provided by guidelines for aggravating role in the offense (D) holding that role in the offense is a factual determination albeit complex a district courts decision not to apply an adjustment based on such a determination is reversed only for clear error (E) holding that a defendant convicted of a soleparticipant offense may nonetheless be entitled to a mitigating role adjustment

A: recognizing that where there are other persons who are criminally responsible for the offense who have not been apprehended or have not been charged due to cooperation a sole defendant may be eligible for an upward or downward adjustment for role in the offense
****
Q: portion of the district court’s written judgment ordering as a special condition of supervised release that “upon completion of his term of imprisonment, the defendant is to be surrendered to a duly-authorized immigration official for deportation.” The district court did not mention this provision at the sentencing hearing, and the Government concedes that it conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence. We agree. The condition imposed is not listed in the sentencing guidelines as a standard or mandatory condition of supervised release, and it is not among the conditions recommended by the Sentencing Commission insofar as the record does not support its application here. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c) & (d)(6); see also United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 938 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The written judgment improperly conflicts 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a conflict with oral pronouncement is not creat ed by including conditions that are standard mandatory or recommended by the sentencing commission (B) holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls (C) holding that written judgment controlled over oral pronouncement (D) holding that when there is a variation between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written memorialization of the sentence the oral pronouncement controls (E) holding that imposition occurs at time of oral pronouncement

A:
holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls
****