instruction:
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.
question:
— cannot alone support guilty verdicts. There must be some further evidence adduced indicating the defendant’s commission of the charged criminal acts. See United States v. Glenn, 312 F.3d at 69; United States v. Scheibel, 870 F.2d 818, 822 (2d Cir.1989); United States v. Johnson, 513 F.2d 819, 824 (2d Cir.1975). True enough. But these cases do not hold that, if such actus reus evidence is adduced, there is some temporal limit on the jury’s consideration of consciousness-of-guilt evidence to establish mens rea. Indeed, if flight or false exculpatory statements were indicative only of a defendant’s knowledge and intent at the time of those actions, the evidence would be irrelevant to the charged crime and properly excluded. Instead, the law admits consciousness-of-gui 209 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). (4) The Admissions to Goldsmith Still further 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defendants false exculpatory statements admissible to show consciousness of guilt (B) recognizing that evidence of government knowledge of the defendants conduct could be part of a defendants argument that it did not knowingly submit false claims (C) holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear (D) recognizing that defendants attempt to persuade a witness to make false exculpatory statements is probative of guilty knowledge and intent (E) holding that defendants attempt to mislead a client by providing it with false information was illegal witness tampering because defendant was trying to corruptly persuade or mislead the client with the intent of influencing its potential testimony before the grand jury
answer:
holding defendants false exculpatory statements admissible to show consciousness of guilt


question:
v. Valenzuela, 722 F.2d 1431, 1433 (9th Cir.1983) (requiring the defendant to shave); United States v. Lamb, 575 F.2d 1310, 1316 (10th Cir.1978) (same); United States v. Murray, 523 F.2d 489, 492 (8th Cir.1975) (requiring the defendant to wear a wig); United States v. Roberts, 481 F.2d 892, 894 (5th Cir.1973) (requiring the defendant to put on a stocking mask worn during the robbery). If a defendant who is compelled to don clothing before the jury does not “testify” for purposes of the Self-Incrimination Clause, it would seem to follow, a fortiori,' that the Self-Incrimination Clause also provides that a defendant who voluntarily dons clothing before the jury may not be required to subject himself to cross-examination. See United States v. Bay, 762 F.2d 1314, 1315-16 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that a physical 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court did not err in concluding after an evidentiary hearing that the immunity agreement between defendant and the government did not extend to the charge being prosecuted (B) holding that the district court correctly declined to instruct the jury that the government was required to prove as an element of the offense that the defendant did not intend to establish a life with his wife (C) holding that a district court did not err in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure due to his status as an alien subject to removal (D) holding that the district court erred in concluding that a defendant was required to take the stand to display his tattoos because the government may compel a defendant to display such physical characteristics (E) holding the government must demonstrate the defendant knew of the characteristics of the firearm that required it to be registered
answer:
holding that district court did not err in concluding after an evidentiary hearing that the immunity agreement between defendant and the government did not extend to the charge being prosecuted


question:
majority of the seized items on the basis that Music City’s inventory was contraband and thus could not be returned, regardless of whether or not the government properly obtained and executed its search warrant. However, the court did order the return of cigarette holders as well as a plastic tube called a “head rush,” thought to be a component that could be used in making a “bong,” which the government acknowledged were improperly seized. II. A. There is no criminal indictment or proceeding pending against Music City. Thus, Music City’s Rule 41(e) motion for the return of its property was really in the nature of a civil proceeding invoking the court’s equitable powers, rather than a criminal proceeding. See White Fabricating Co. v. United States, 903 F.2d 404, 407-08, (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Delta Engineering v. United States, 41 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court has discretion under appropriate circumstances to rule on summary judgment motion before addressing pending class certification motion (B) holding that rule 41e motion for return of seized property is treated as a civil equitable proceeding when criminal proceedings against moving party are not yet pending (C) holding that rule 4as timing requirements apply to an appeal from an order granting or denying a criminal defendants motion for the return of property under fedrcrimp 41e (D) holding that a district court has jurisdiction to consider  a rule 41e motion  filed after criminal proceedings had been completed (E) holding that a district court has jurisdiction to entertain a rule 41e motion for the return of property before a criminal prosecution has begun believing such a motion to be in effect a civil action
answer:

holding that district court has discretion under appropriate circumstances to rule on summary judgment motion before addressing pending class certification motion