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.

Example Input: The Court is not at liberty to follow the law of other Circuits if it contradicts -the law of this Circuit. Plaintiffs’ other argument relies on the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Delta Coal Program v. Libman, 743 F.2d 852 (11th Cir. 1984) which stated that Summit Office Park applies only when a Plaintiff without standing adds a new party and a new cause of action. Delta Coal Program, 743 F.2d at-857, n.6. (“Here, by contrast, the operative facts and the cause of action are not changed, but only the formally named plaintiff.”). Delta Coal Program, however, does not apply to the present case. First, the district court there permitted the substitution of new plaintiffs, and it was within the court’s discretion to do so. Delta Coal Program v. Libman, 743 F.2d 852, 856 (11th Cir. 1984) (<HOLDING>). Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs did not ask 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties (B) holding that when district court has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over sapcr matter judge of another district court in same county may rule in matter so long as record is clear that judge is acting on behalf of court with continuing and exclusive jurisdiction (C) holding that the district court has broad authority to take jurisdiction over a matter even when that matter is not brought by a real party in interest (D) holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court (E) holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive
Example Output: holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties

Example Input: is minimized if officers exercise unquestioned command of the situation. Id., 129 S.Ct. at 786-87. Here, evidence supports the district court’s finding that Hollins’s behavior gave the police reasonable suspicion to believe that Hollins was armed and dangerous when they searched him. First, Hollins repeatedly refused to follow instructions to keep his hands in plain view, and he would slide his hands toward his waist while he was seated in the vehicle. Nervous, evasive behavior, which Hollins exhibited, is one of several factors which may be pertinent in determining reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Gordon, 231 F.3d 750, 756 (11th Cir.2000). Second, Hollins repeatedly refused to obey an officer’s instruction to exit the vehicle. See Maryland, 519 U.S. at 410, 117 S.Ct. at 884 (<HOLDING>). Third, Hollins repeatedly disregarded an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that police officer may order passengers to remain in vehicle with hands up during traffic stop (B) holding that it is permissible for an officer to order the occupants out of a vehicle during a lawful stop (C) holding an officer may order a passenger to get out of a car during a traffic stop and may frisk a passenger for weapons if the officer reasonably suspects the passenger is armed and dangerous (D) holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction (E) holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred
Example Output: holding that police officer may order passengers to remain in vehicle with hands up during traffic stop

Example Input: Moore has to show that an error: (i) was made; (ii) is plain (i.e., clear or obvious); and (iii) affects his substantial rights. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir.2009). Even if we assumed that the district court’s brief explanation constituted an obvious error in violation of Carter, Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) requires Moore to also show that the district court’s lack of explanation had a prejudicial effect on the sentence imposed. See Puckett v. United States,-U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1433 n. 4, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Having only summarily raised the reasonableness of his 188-month sentence in an Anders brief to this court, Moore has made no such showing. We thus affirm Moore’s within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing presumption (B) recognizing a presumption of reasonableness (C) recognizing that this court applies an appellate presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence (D) recognizing this presumption (E) holding that a court of appeals may afford a presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence
Example Output:
recognizing presumption