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.

Q: of the evidence. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 511, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. In interpreting Hicks, supra, the Second Circuit has stated definitively as follows: [Defendant] misreads the Supreme Court’s statement in Hicks that once a defendant produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his or her action, the plaintiff must then establish that the defendant’s actions were intentionally discriminatory. [Defendant] takes this statement as requiring the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence after the defendant’s production — evidence beyond that presented in the plaintiffs prima facie case. Justice Scalia took pains to preclude such an interpretation of the Court’s decision when he observed that, upon rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons for its action , 142 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1189, 127 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence (B) holding that former employer met its burden of proof that ubc exception applied (C) holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant (D) holding plaintiffs ultimate burden of proof can be met by combining proof submitted in its prima facie case with evidence that defendants proffered reasons for its acts were false (E) recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous

A: holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence
****
Q: 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

A: holding affidavit statements by custodian of records based upon review of companys business records contained sufficient evidence of ownership of account
****
Q: not on the requirement for “candidates [to] show a ‘modicum’ of support prior to their placement on the ballot.” Appellant’s Br. at 10. Instead, they specifically challenge as undue and excessive the percentage of support they are required to show under the statute. Id. (“[T]he issue in this case is whether the modicum of support that Section 16.1-11-36 actually requires— more than 15 percent of the eligible pool for some candidates — is constitutional.”). The Supreme Court often focuses on the amount of support a candidate is required to show when determining whether a ballot access restriction is constitutional, specifically considering the percentage of signatures or votes required. See, e.g., Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 190, 107 S.Ct. 533, 93 L.Ed.2d 499 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Am. Party of Tex., 415 U.S. at 774-75, 783, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state may not compel political parties to allow nonmembers to vote in primary elections (B) holding that state may not compel political party to allow nonmembers to vote in its primary elections (C) holding as constitutional a 1 vote requirement in a blanket primary (D) holding that the right to vote is fundamental (E) holding that a fair referendum assuring the equal right to vote under  101a1 includes the right of members to have the vote scheduled at a time when they can exercise their vote and the right to be free from intimidation or fear of reprisal

A:
holding that state may not compel political parties to allow nonmembers to vote in primary elections
****