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:
that may be considered in determining punishment are the subject of article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex.Code CRIM. PROC. Ann. Art. 37.07 (Vernon Supp.2004). This statute authorizes the admission of evidence in the punishment phase of trial as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing. Id. The circumstances of the offense are relevant to sentencing and may be considered by the trier of fact in determining the punishment to be assessed. Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 44, 63 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). One circumstance of the offense that may be considered is the degree of injury to the victim so long as the fact finder may rationally attribute moral culpability to the accused for that injury. Stavinoha v. State, 808 S.W.2d 76, 78-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); Miller-El v. State, 782 S.W.2d 892, 896 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sexual assault coercion and harassment certainly may violate contemporary standards of decency and cause physical and psychological harm (B) holding in aggravated sexual assault case that testimony regarding psychological trauma suffered by child victim and its physical manifestations properly admitted (C) holding that psychological conditions resulting from workrelated trauma are compensable (D) recognizing trauma that new trial would likely bring to victim of child sexual assault (E) recognizing the purpose of missouris child victim witness protection law sec 491675 et seq as an attempt to minimize the emotional and psychological trauma to the alleged child victim

Ex Output:
holding that sexual assault coercion and harassment certainly may violate contemporary standards of decency and cause physical and psychological harm


Ex Input:
the report and recommendation did not notify the parties that they must file timely objections to preserve their right to appellate review. He argues that the firm waiver rule should not be enforced in the absence of such an explicit notification. While we have held that the firm waiver rule is inapplicable when pro se litigants are not given explicit notice of the rule, see id. at 659, we have never extended that practice to counseled cases. We decline to do so today, because we expect counsel to know the rules. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 n. 5 (10th Cir.2007) (“[W]e expect counsel to know the pleading rules of the road without being given personal notice of them by the district court.”); United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1157 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). While 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides that a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules (B) holding that a criminal defendants counsel is charged with knowledge of the local criminal rules in their entirety including those parts of the local civil rules incorporated by reference (C) holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying its own local rules even though those rules prevented it from considering some facts improperly alleged by plaintiffs that might have been relevant to the summary judgment motion (D) holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery (E) holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings

Ex Output:
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules


Ex Input:
the court held that the discretion of the trial court to impose such sanctions has constitutional limitations. TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 917. When a trial court dismisses a ease based on a claimant’s conduct during discovery, it adjudicates the claimant’s cause of action without regard to the merits of the case. Discovery sanctions cannot be used to adjudicate a party’s claims unless that party’s conduct justifies a presumption that his claim lacks merit. Id. at 918. The court further explained that “[s]anctions which are so seve d 167, 171 (Tex.1993) (death-penalty sanctions held inappropriate where nothing in the evidence suggested Remington’s argument lacked merit, a finding necessary to a justify death-penalty sanction); Koepp v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 833 S.W.2d 514 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>). Denton failed to appear for his deposition 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable (B) holding deathpenalty sanctions inappropriate where party inadvertently failed to comply with courts order and nothing in the record  even approaches the flagrant bad faith or abuse necessary for the imposition of such sanctions (C) holding deathpenalty sanctions inappropriate where plaintiff refused to name coworkers who used drugs and was late in answering interrogatories because of attorneys illness because there was no indication of bad faith (D) holding that without a demonstration of bad faith on the part of the attorney in question sanctions pursuant to this statute are inappropriate (E) holding that it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a new affidavit and report complying with section 2622 where there was no indication that the plaintiffs failure to file the report earlier in the litigation was in bad faith

Ex Output:

holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable