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 Q]: required expert testimony at trial. We agree with other appellate courts that the statute does not violate the open courts provision by requiring an expert report sooner rather than later in the litigation. See, e.g., Gill v. Russo, 39 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Knie v. Piskun, 23 S.W.3d 455, 467 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, pet. denied). Mocega’s fifth point is overruled. Notice of Hearing Mocega’s final two points assert the trial court was required to grant her the grace period provided under art. 4590i, § 13.01(g). A motion under that section is timely if filed before “any hearing” on a defendant’s motion to dismiss. Urquhart’s motion was “heard” by submission on April 3rd. See Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>). Mocega’s motion was not filed until April 
 Holding statements: (A) holding term successor does not contemplate acquisition by ordinary purchase from another corporation (B) holding that a hearing does not contemplate an oral presentation unless required by express language or context (C) holding that oral rendition of judgment supported by the courts docket sheet was insufficient express specific written order is required (D) holding that statutory authority to modify does not contemplate fundamental changes (E) holding that express oral agreement with government agent was not binding because among other factors applicable regulations required contract to be in writing
[EX A]: holding term successor does not contemplate acquisition by ordinary purchase from another corporation

[EX Q]: facts underlying the charges for which the defendant had been acquitted were an “integral and natural part of an account of the [defendant’s] crimef.]” The same cannot be said for the facts at issue here, which relate to a seizure that occurred on an entirely different occasion. For that reason, we do not find either Agee or Solomon directly relevant to the present controversy. As a result, we will first examine the challenged evidence in light of the principles traditionally employed in evaluating challenges to evidence admitted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b), which focus on the similarity between the prior incident and the incident that underlies the current charges against the defendant. See Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 348, 107 L. Ed. 2d 708, 717 (1990) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, the events of 10 February 2005 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that collateral estoppel component of tire double jeopardy clause did not preclude government from introducing defendants prior acquittal at trial because government was presented with lower standard of proof in the later case (B) holding that the estoppel doctrine did not apply because unlike the situation in ashe v swenson the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case (C) holding that a prior acquittal does not preclude the admission of evidence of a defendants other alleged crimes in a prosecution for the bank robbery on the basis of collateral estoppel principles because    the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case (D) holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct (E) holding that there is no need for a formal motion for a judgment of acquittal in a bench trial because the plea of not guilty asks the court for a judgment of acquittal
[EX A]: holding that collateral estoppel component of tire double jeopardy clause did not preclude government from introducing defendants prior acquittal at trial because government was presented with lower standard of proof in the later case

[EX Q]: defendant was not present at the scene of the crime, and we made clear that “a defendant who is present but unarmed during the commission of a crime may ([ ] by the division of labor) make it easier for another to carry a firearm and therefore aid and abet that act.” Id. at 47. Here, the evidence showed that Santana actively facilitated Torres’s use of the firearm by “division of labor.” Santana entered the apartment with Torres, helped to subdue Flores, and then Santana guarded Flores while Torres stole untaxed cigarettes, marijuana, jewelry, and electronics. Santana’s role exceeded the type of assistance to a gunman in a robbery that we have previously found sufficient for an aiding and abetting conviction under § 924(c). See United States v. Gomez, 580 F.3d 94, 102-03 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). The evidence was also sufficient to establish 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a comment made by a person who played no role in the employment decision was a stray remark that lacked any probative value as a matter of law (B) holding that escape driver with no prior knowledge that robbery would be armed is aider and abettor of aimed bank robbery if he knowingly and willfully joins in the escape phase of an armed bank robbery knowing that an accomplice has a gun (C) holding that a downgrade for a juvenile who pled guilty to firstdegree robbery was not warranted because although the defendant acted as the lookout while his confederate committed the robbery we see no basis for characterizing defendants role as only secondary  and no evidence of the kind of psychological impairment that would be relevant to this determination (D) holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict an accomplice who was  present as a lookout at the scene and who played a critical supportive role in the armed robbery by acting as a driver of a secondary vehicle (E) holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation when the defendant previously planned to commit the robbery armed himself with a shotgun and shot the victim during the robbery
[EX A]:
holding that a comment made by a person who played no role in the employment decision was a stray remark that lacked any probative value as a matter of law