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.

Input: Consider Input: rejected'this argument, holding that the allegations, even if true, did not amount to an -IDEA procedural violation. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415 et seq. (setting forth the procedural safeguards afforded to parents when their child is in special education). 13 . It is worth noting that at least one state— Massachusetts, as the IDEA permits, has enacted a more stringent standard. Specifically, children in Massachusetts who are eligible for special education services are entitled to IEPs that provide for their “maximum possible development.'' See Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 71B § 2 (emphasis added); Frank S. v. School Committee of the Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District, 26 F.Supp.2d 219, 226 (D.Mass.1998). 14 . See Springer v. Fairfax County School Board, 134 F.3d 659, 663 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (citing Hartmann v. Loudoun County, 118 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that absent some statutory infraction the task of education belongs to the educators who have been charged by society with that critical task (B) holding that the critical vendor order was not a defense because it permitted rather  than mandated payment of prepetition claims of critical vendors (C) holding that since the performer of a task which could be performed by a layperson represented that he was in fact a professional engineer krs 413245 applied (D) holding that certain veniremen had been improperly excluded because they acknowledged that their views of the death penalty might affect their deliberations but only to the extent that they would view their task with greater gravity (E) holding that it was pure speculation that if the preference payment had not been made the vendor would have been included as a critical vendor and the court would have approved it

Output: holding that the critical vendor order was not a defense because it permitted rather  than mandated payment of prepetition claims of critical vendors


Input: Consider Input: it is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”). B. Whether the FDIC Properly Determined the Amount of Deposit Insurance to Which Plaintiffs Were Entitled under the Regulations Applicable on August 8, 2008 18. The FDIC’s deposit insurance determinations are governed the regulations set forth in 12 C.F.R. Part 330. Regulations governing recognition of deposit ownership and fiduciary relationships note that, except in circumstances not relevant here, when “determining the amount of insurance available to each depositor, the FDIC shall presume that deposited funds are actually owned in the manner indicated on the deposit account records of the insured depository institution.” 12 C.F.R. § 330.5(a)(1). See also Villafane-Neriz v. F.D.I.C., 75 F.3d 727, 731 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). “Deposit account records” include “account 
 Holding statements: (A) holding affidavit statements by custodian of records based upon review of companys business records contained sufficient evidence of ownership of account (B) holding that the fdic is entitled to rely exclusively on the account records of the failed institution and that while ownership under state law is one prerequisite for insurance coverage the deposit account records are controlling (C) holding that when state law prohibited discovery of records of a medical review committee the district court should have determined whether the records came within the statutes coverage and if so whether the right of access nevertheless outweighed the public policy expressed by state law (D) holding that seventeen missing records does not constitute improper record keeping because the fact that the records are not at the station does not mean that the records are incorrect or inaccurate (E) holding that records relating to a student court were not education records

Output: holding affidavit statements by custodian of records based upon review of companys business records contained sufficient evidence of ownership of account


Input: Consider Input: itself have been established through procedures satisfying the fair notice, reasonable doubt, and jury trial guarantees.” Id. at 249, 119 S.Ct. 1215. Huber argues that this language forbids the use of a prior conviction unless the conviction was the result of a jury verdict. This argument misapprehends the rationale behind the prior-conviction exception. Apprendi and Blakely set limits on judicial factfinding. See Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303-04, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (“[T]he ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant”) (em 80 (App.2005) (upholding sentencing enhancement based on prior misdemeanor conviction); Goldsberry v. State, 821 N.E.2d 447, 461 (Ind.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). We recognize that some courts and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that we cannot properly receive and consider evidence that was not presented to and considered by the trial court (B) holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion lacked specificity (C) holding that trial judge properly considered defendants misdemeanor convictions (D) holding when defendant waived objection to introduction of evidence but evidentiary hearing granted and judge considered claim defendants waiver was effectively waived by judge (E) holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion was not made in good faith


Output: holding that we cannot properly receive and consider evidence that was not presented to and considered by the trial court