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: If a statement does not contain any expressly exculpatory material, the Government need not produce that statement to the defense. To hold otherwise would impose an insuperable burden on the Government to determine what facially non-exculpatory evidence might possibly be favorable to the accused by inferential reasoning. We are confident that the Supreme Court did not intend the Brady holding to sweep so broadly. United States v. Comosona, 848 F.2d 1110, 1115 (10th Cir.1988); see also Harris v. Kuba, 486 F.3d 1010, 1016 (7th Cir.2007) {“Brady does not require that police officers or prosecutors explore multiple potential inferences to discern whether evidence that is not favorable to a defendant could become favorable.”); United States v. Marrero, 904 F.2d 251, 261 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that just such inferential 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the presentation of a new theory does not constitute the presentation of a new issue on which a jury trial should be granted as of right under  rule 38b (B) holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights (C) holding that the burden is on the plaintiff (D) holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence (E) holding that brady does not place any burden upon the government to conduct a defendants investigation or assist in the presentation of the defenses case

Answer: holding that the presentation of a new theory does not constitute the presentation of a new issue on which a jury trial should be granted as of right under  rule 38b


Question: money judgment can be satisfied out of any of the defendant’s assets.” Billman, 915 F.2d at 920 (citing United States v. Ginsburg, 773 F.2d 798, 800-03 (7th Cir.1985)). Consequently, after a conviction on a forfeiture count, the district court may order forfeiture of the defendant’s substitute assets. The Billman Court then examined the question of whether substitute assets could be restrained pending trial and ruled in the affirmative. 915 F.2d at 920-21. With an eye to the remedial purposes of the forfeiture statute, the court read the provision allowing for a restraining order in connection with the substitute assets provision as calling for the preservation and restraint of substitute assets pending trial. Id. at 921; see also United States v. Skiles, 715 F.Supp. 1567 (N.D.Ga.1989) (<HOLDING>). The Fourth Circuit in Billman relied on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that additional witnesses were not needed to corroborate the defendants drug abuse problems because counsel had already introduced sufficient evidence of drug use (B) holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute (C) holding that a state conviction is a drug trafficking offense because the trafficked drug is listed in a csa schedule (D) holding in the drug trafficking context that the government is allowed to restrain additional assets pretrial to ensure sufficient assets for forfeiture (E) recognizing the connection between guns and drug trafficking

Answer: holding that additional witnesses were not needed to corroborate the defendants drug abuse problems because counsel had already introduced sufficient evidence of drug use


Question: types of proper and timely postdecision motions extend the time to appeal the order or judgment that is the subject of the motion. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 2. Motions for amended findings and a new trial are included in the list of tolling motions. Id,, subd. 2(b), (d). Unless Minn. Stat. § 508.29 provides otherwise, appellants’ proper and timely motions for amended findings or a new trial extended the time to appeal the April 19, 2017 order granting respondent’s petition. No language in Minn. Stat. § 508.29 precludes the operation of Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd.' 2. On the contrary, Minn. Stat. § 508.29 specifies that the appeal shall be as in other civil cases. Cf. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. v. Main St. Fridley Props., LLC, 755 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Minn. App. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Appellants’ proper and timely motions for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that faa  16a3 did not preempt a state statute prohibiting appeal of an order to compel arbitration and reasoning that there is no reason to suppose that the timing of the exercise of the right of appeal from an order compelling arbitration is other than a procedural matter which does not alter the substantive rights of either party (B) holding that an order not denominated a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal (C) holding that minn r civ app p 10401 subd 2 does not apply to an appeal of an order approving the public use or public purpose necessity and authority for the taking under minn stat  117075 subd 1c 2006 because the statute specifies that the order becomes final unless the appeal is taken within the 60day appeal period and the statute does not indicate that the matter is to proceed as in other civil actions (D) holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal (E) holding that if an express appeal waiver does not preclude a challenge to the sentence as unlawful then the covenant not to appeal becomes meaningless

Answer:
holding that faa  16a3 did not preempt a state statute prohibiting appeal of an order to compel arbitration and reasoning that there is no reason to suppose that the timing of the exercise of the right of appeal from an order compelling arbitration is other than a procedural matter which does not alter the substantive rights of either party