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:
litigation. The district court can correct any abuses at the fees for fees stage under the “reasonableness” standard. The presumptive cap mostly takes away the discretion afforded to the district court in the statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (“[T]he court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs... .”). , Congress knows how to set caps on fee applications and has done so in other contexts, yet it did not do so in § 1988. See, e.g., Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2158, 2165, 192 L.Ed.2d 208 (2015) (concluding that a fee-shifting provision in the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for “[t]ime spent litigating a fee application”); In re Meese, 907 F.2d 1192, 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>); cf. Kaseman v. Dist. of Columbia, 444 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment (B) holding that time entries such as preparation for hearing or preparation for school visit were too vague and reducing overall fee award by twentyfive percent (C) holding that fee application must be sufficiently detailed to allow court to make an independent evaluation as to what fees are actual and necessary and finding that failure to keep contemporaneous records does not automatically result in denial of the fees but the lack thereof justifies a reduction of the fee to the level proven (D) holding that attorneys fees for the preparation of the fee application are compensable (E) holding that the independent counsel reauthorization act does not permit fees claimed for the preparation of a fee application

Ex Output:
holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment


Ex Input:
Supreme Court rejected Cook’s claim of error on direct appeal, finding that the prosecutor’s comments were not directed at Cook’s decision not to testify, and that the comment about the videotape was invited by Cook’s cross-examination and argument. Cook, 821 P.2d at 741-43. The district court agreed that the comments were either comments on the state of the evidence or invited by Cook’s arguments and cross-examination. In addition, the district court found that, if there was error, it was harmless under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 631, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). Comment on the refusal to testify at trial violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (<HOLDING>). Also, a prosecutor’s comment on a defendant’s 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify (B) holding that it is improper for prosecutor to comment on accuseds postarrest silence (C) holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds silence during police custodial interrogation (D) holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds testimonial silence (E) holding that the fifth amendment  forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accuseds silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt

Ex Output:
recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify


Ex Input:
and murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA”) agent in Mexico. Id. at 2746. Due to difficulties in extricating the plaintiff from Mexico, the DEA hired a group of Mexican nationals to abduct, the plaintiff and transport him by private plane to the U.S. where he was arrested. Id. He stood trial for his alleged crimes and was acquitted. Id. After returning to Mexico, he instituted a civil action against several Mexican nationals and the DEA. Id. at 2747. 17 . The Court notes that the delayed discovery rule does not apply to § 17200 claims. See Snapp & Associates Ins. Services, Inc. v. Robertson, 96 Cal.App.4th 884, 891, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 331 (2002). 18 . The Court notes that it must take these statements regarding foreign policy at face value. See Sarei, 221 F.Supp.2d at 1181-82 (<HOLDING>); cf. Sosa, 124 S.Ct. at 2766 n. 21 (noting 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court must accept the statement of foreign policy provided by the executive branch as conclusive of its view of that subject it may not assess whether the policy articulated is wise or unwise or whether it is based on misinformation or faulty reasoning (B) holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth (C) holding that whether a particular document is subject to the work product protection depends on whether the subject matter of the document concerns preparation or strategy or the appraisal of the strengths or weaknesses of the companys case or the activities of the attorneys in preparing their case or is at least primarily concerned with legal assistance and not simply underlying evidence (D) holding that a local government may be held liable for its employees constitutional violation only when the employee is executing the governments policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may be fairly said to represent official policy (E) holding that it is not

Ex Output:

holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth