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:
state witnesses regarding their credibility during the course of the trial in chief. Angela Sweat had negotiated with state prosecution involving armed robbery charges, the facts of the plea agreement for impeachment was not permitted by the trial court. This witness was the sole evidence against the petitioner and had the jury known of her motive to lie they would have found me not guilty of the armed robbery charges. This was a denial of my right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the jury would have found me not guilty. Generally, federal courts should not review a state trial judge’s rulings with respect to the admissibility of evidence. Shaw v. Boney, 695 F.2d 528, 530 (11th Cir.1983). Even if the trial court’ h Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Evidentiary rulings are within the broad 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge (B) holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity (C) holding that denigrating insanity defense was inappropriate (D) holding that where the sole defense was insanity excluded testimony was material a crucial critical and highly significant factor (E) holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense

Ex Output:
holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge


Ex Input:
Rodrigues hit him in the head with a hand-held radio. Defendant Rodrigues ordered Barile to tell the doctors at the hospital that he injured himself in a “fall.” Subsequently, Barile made a complaint to the Internal Affairs Division and an investigator was assigned to verify Barile’s claim. On June 11, 1997, a private attorney informed Barile that the law firm had filed a Notice of Intent to sue the City of Hartford. On April 13, 2004, the cessive force against him on December 21, 1996. Thus, Barile had until December 21, 1999, to file his complaint. When considering a ease filed by a prisoner, the courts consider a complaint to have been filed as of the date the inmate gives the complaint to prison officials to be mailed to the court. See Dory v. Ryan, 999 F.2d 679, 682 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court (B) holding that an noa filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date that the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing (C) holding that prisoners notice of appeal deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court (D) holding that the date of filing is the time at which a pro se prisoner entrusts the document to prison officials for delivery (E) holding that a pro se prisoner complaint is deemed filed as of the date the prisoner gives the complaint to prison officials to be forwarded to the court

Ex Output:
holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court


Ex Input:
within the criminal code, the legislature has classified “violations” as offenses “which characteristically involve conduct inappropriate to an orderly society but which do not denote criminality in their commission,” AS 11.81.250(a)(6), and defined a “violation” as a “noncriminal offense [such that] conviction of a violation does not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a crime,” AS 11.81.900(b)(58). With respect to the size of the fine, it is our view that a maximum fine of $8,000 for a first offender, or $6,000 for a repeat offender, does not in itself connote criminality in the context of the highly regulated multi-million dollar fishing industry. See State v. O’Neill Investigations, Inc., 609 P.2d 520, 538 (Alaska 1980) (plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>). To be considered along with the fine is the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a promissory statement of future intent which does not come to fruition is not an unfair or deceptive practice (B) recognizing purpose of ccpa as protection of consumers from unfair illegal or deceptive acts (C) holding that 5000 civil fine assessable for unfair or deceptive bill collection practice does not render proceedings criminal prosecutions as those found guilty will not suffer severe collateral consequences such as curtailment of future economic opportunities or substantial social opprobrium (D) holding expired domestic violence restraining order not moot because of collateral legal consequences such as consideration in custody determination and nonlegal collateral consequences such as reputational harm (E) holding that billings by the cruise line for port charges that were misrepresented as passthrough expenses but kept as additional profits is a deceptive practice under the florida deceptive and unfair trade practices act

Ex Output:

holding that a promissory statement of future intent which does not come to fruition is not an unfair or deceptive practice