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:
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

Ex Output:
holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal


Ex Input:
from the Fijian military,” was “robbed repeatedly,” had his temple burned by Fijian soldiers, and Fijian soldiers attacked his home and destroyed his property while his wife was home alone. See id. Significantly, the attacks were linked by the fact that they were all carried out by a common entity, as opposed to random acts of violence that this court has characterized as the “common byproduct of civil unrest and economic turmoil.” See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004). The acts described by Kumar are closer to those in Gormley. Therefore, the evidence does not compel a finding of persecution. Nor did Kumar present evidence that would compel “any reasonable adjudicator” to find that he demonstrated a likelihood of future persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061 (<HOLDING>). Because Kumar’s evidence did not compel a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals (B) holding that personal disputes do not constitute persecution (C) holding that evidence that  is consistent with acts of private violence  or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground (D) holding that while widespread violence against a protected group by private individuals and public officials may constitute persecution widespread discrimination that may include persecution of some individuals does not compel such a finding (E) holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution

Ex Output:
holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals


Ex Input:
revenues, income, earnings per share, and other financial items; statements of plans and objectives of management for future operations; and statements of future economic performance. Id. § 78u-5(i)(l)(A)-(C). Additionally, “any statement of the assumptions underlying or relating to any [such] statement” is classified as forward-looking. Id. § 78u-5(i)(l)(D). Once it is determined that the statement is indeed forward-looking, the safe harbor provides two alternative paths to immunity where: (1) the statement was accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, id. § 78u-5(e)(1)(A); or (2) plaintiff fails to provide the projections were made with actual knowledge that they were false or misleading, id. § 78u-5(c)(1)(B). See In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). A. Forward-Looking Statements The majority of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a prior judgment resting on two or more independent alternative grounds is not conclusive as to issues which were necessarily found in order to establish only one of those grounds (B) holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction (C) holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified (D) holding that this court must determine by independent review the actual grounds upon which the remand was based (E) holding that the safe harbor provides two independent grounds for protection

Ex Output:

holding that a prior judgment resting on two or more independent alternative grounds is not conclusive as to issues which were necessarily found in order to establish only one of those grounds