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: State, after expressing its clear and accurate understanding of the ... issue ..., deliberately steer[s] the District Court away from the question and towards the merits of [the] petition.” Wood v. Milyard, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1826, 1835, 182 L.Ed.2d 733 (2012) (internal citation omitted). In Wood, the state had assured the district court that it was “not challenging, but d[id] not concede, the timeliness of the petition.” Id. at 1830. As in Wood, the state’s words and conduct cannot be described as an inadvertent mistake or forfeiture of the exhaustion defense, as was the case in Day, but instead they clearly evidence an express intention to waive the exhaustion requirement. As the First Circuit said, “[t]hat was game, set, and match.” Pike v. Guarino, 492 F.3d 61, 71-72 (1st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Other circuits have also held this type of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal (B) holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding (C) holding that a waived issue ordinarily cannot be resurrected on appeal whereas a forfeited issue may be reviewed for plain error (D) holding statement that  petitioner is correct in her assertion that the claims presented  have been exhausted  was unmistakably clear and could not be resurrected on appeal alteration in original (E) holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court

A: holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal
****
Q: District Court Executive is directed to: (a) File this Order; (b) ENTER JUDGMENT consistent with this Order; (c) Provide copies of this Order and the Judgment to counsel; and (d) CLOSE THIS FILE. 1 . These facts can be found in the parties' Statements of Material Facts, submitted with briefing on the pending Motions pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1. The Court deems admitted any material fact asserted by a party and not rebutted by the opposing party. The parties agree on the facts recited in this section, except where otherwise noted. 2 . Several courts have held that Title III applies only to actual places, and that membership organizations are not subject to Title III. See, e.g., Elitt v. U.S.A. Hockey, 922 F.Supp. 217, 223 (E.D.Mo.1996) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. 1995 Tenet ParaAmerica Bicycle 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that hockey organization was not sufficiently linked to a place so not subject to ada (B) holding ada claim was discharged (C) holding that title ii of the ada is not applicable to the federal government (D) holding that national football league was not a place and therefore not subject to ada (E) holding that group organizing bike race was not subject to ada

A: holding ada claim was discharged
****
Q: dissent calls attention to the proper role which Congress should be filling (but has failed to fill) in providing the proper guidelines for jurisdictional determinations in the unincorporated, non-trust entity context. See Carden, 494 U.S. at 198-199, 110 S.Ct. at 1022-23 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). It is obvious that clearer, more appropriate guidelines must be dictated for diversity jurisdiction determinations in contexts such as this, either by Congress or by the Supreme Court. The issue of how to categorize Lloyd’s syndicates for jurisdictional purposes has not yet been addressed by the Third Circuit. The Sixth Circuit, on the other hand, has addressed the issue of citizenship of a Lloyd’s syndicate. See Certain Interested Underwriters v. Layne, 26 F.3d 39 (6th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). While the decision of the Sixth Circuit is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that citizenship of active underwriters and names with lloyds london had to be considered for purposes of diversity jurisdiction (B) holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal (C) holding that by applying the real party in interest test in conjunction with tennessees law concerning suits involving principal and agent only the underwriters should be included for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction (D) recognizing that a narrow reading of missouri would suggest that the state is the real party in interest for diversity purposes only when the relief sought inures to the benefit of the state alone but noting that cases have only required a real interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the litigation (E) holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes

A:
holding that citizenship of active underwriters and names with lloyds london had to be considered for purposes of diversity jurisdiction
****