TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: to those sentences because no error in the sentencing appears on the face of the record. Ninety-nine years is a “term of years not less than five years.” While Thomas’ sentences, under court interpretations of § 566.030.2, may not be authorized, we are not able to reach such issues where the sentencing defect is not so patent as to present a jurisdictional issue. This sentencing does not present a jurisdictional issue. Conclusion Thomas is ordered to be returned to the circuit court of the City of St. Louis for resentencing on the three first degree robbery counts within the limits authorized by the law. SO ORDERED. All concur. 1 . All sectional references are to Missouri Revised Statutes 1986, unless otherwise indicated. 2 . See, e.g., State v. Williams, 828 S.W.2d 894 (Mo.App.1992)(<HOLDING>); State v. Charron, 743 S.W.2d 436 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendants sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum (B) recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum (C) holding sentence of thirtyfive years in prison with ten years probation for seconddegree murder is within the statutory maximum under 1997 statutes (D) holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum (E) holding sentence of 100 years for forcible rape was in excess of statutory maximum

SOLUTION: holding that a defendants sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum

PROBLEM: merits of a plaintiffs cause of action ... also implicate the class certification decision,” Jackson v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth, 260 F.R.D. 168, 184 (E.D.Pa.2009), such an inquiry is merely preliminary. Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 317. A plaintiff need not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the merits of its claims at the class certification stage, and any inquiry into the merits that is not necessary to a Rule 23 decision is precluded. Jackson, 260 F.R.D. at 184 (citing Newton, 259 F.3d at 166-67, and Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 317-18). However, the movant must do more than “assur[e] ... the court that it intends or plans to meet the requirements” of Rule 23. Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 318; see also Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 453 F.3d 179, 186 (3d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). As with other matters relating to Rule 23 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right (B) holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity (C) holding that clearly established means the contours of the right were so clear at the time the officials acted that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right (D) holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he or she is doing violates that right (E) holding that there must be full and clear articulation of the litigations contours at the time of class certification

SOLUTION: holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right

PROBLEM: 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Friedman, 554 F.3d 1301, 1307 (10th Cir.2009). Our review of the reasonableness of Defendant’s sentence is conducted under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Zapata, 546 F.3d 1179, 1192 (10th Cir.2008). The district court sentenced Defendant to 121 months’ imprisonment — the low end of the suggested Guidelines range. Because the district court selected a with in-Guidelines sentence, its ruling is due a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Algarate-Valeneia, 550 F.3d 1238, 1245 n. 6 (10th Cir.2008). Our review of the record has failed to uncover any evidence that brings this presumption of reasonableness into question. See United States v. Donohoe, 458 F.2d 237, 239 (10th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This order and judgment is not 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge (B) holding that trial justice has wide discretion to determine relevancy of evidence (C) recognizing that the trial judge must be given a wide range of discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared (D) recognizing that wide discretion in imposition of sentence reposes in the trial judge (E) holding that trial court has wide discretion in determining sufficiency of foundation for opinion testimony

SOLUTION:
recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge