TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: CURIAM: Michael Disch appeals his convictions for mailing threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c), and making false statements to an FBI agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Disch argues that the district court judge was required to recuse himself sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b). Ordinarily, we review a judge’s decision not to recuse himself under § 455(a) and § 455(b) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir.1999); see also Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1527-28 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). However, when a defendant fails to seek 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error (B) holding that a  455b violation is subject to harmless error review (C) holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error (D) holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review (E) holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis

SOLUTION: holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error

PROBLEM: even if the 1993 judgment was final and appealable, they may challenge the merits of the 1993 judgment in this appeal from the 1995 order. This appeal is untimely only if the District Court’s 1993 decision — which ordered only that ISP submit a plan to remedy the constitutional flaws in its policy — was a final judgment, appealable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We believe that the District Court’s 1993 order was no more final under § 1291 than the one at issue in Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist., 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir.1987), which held that a district court order to a school district to submit a plan to remedy an unconstitutional atmosphere of racial hostility was not an appealable final judgment. Id. at 539; see also Hendrickson v. Griggs, 856 F.2d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The November 1995 judgment is, therefore, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (B) holding that the modification or dissolution of an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding is appealable as a matter of right under  1292a1 (C) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable (D) holding injunction ordering prison to submit plan for reformation of unconstitutional prison conditions not appealable as interlocutory order under 28 usc  1292a1 (E) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable

SOLUTION: holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable

PROBLEM: had a legitimate concern that additional undiscovered parties were present and reasonably acted to protect the officers’ safety. Given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have thought that she would be free to leave after brief questioning. The appellants contend, however, that the length of the detention transformed an otherwise lawful stop into an arrest. The officers had determined that Ward and Roller were unarmed and that there were no additional suspects within the bank, but the officers did not un-handcuff them until they had verified their story 20 minutes later. Although 20 minutes is not an exceedingly long time, it is certainly long enough to transform a stop into an arrest, see, e.g., United States v. Chamberlin, 644 F.2d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has refused to adopt a per 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that police officers had probable cause to arrest a suspect where the facts suggest a fair probability that the suspect has committed a crime (B) holding in the alternative that even if handcuffing a suspect did convert the detention into an arrest the arrest was justified by probable cause (C) holding ninety minutes excessive (D) holding that 20 minute detention under the circumstances of the ease was not arrest (E) holding suspect for 20 minutes constituted an arrest

SOLUTION:
holding that police officers had probable cause to arrest a suspect where the facts suggest a fair probability that the suspect has committed a crime