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.

Example Input: States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). By assenting to settlement in this action, Defendants waived, for example, the right to contest the EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction, which would have been an element of the EPA’s substantive claim. See United States v. Krilich, 209 F.3d 968, 972 (7th Cir.2000) (“[T]he interstate connection, i.e. that the waters involved were ‘waters of the United States,’ is merely an element of the United States’ Clean Water Act case under section 301.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 992, 121 S.Ct. 482, 148 L.Ed.2d 455 (2000); see also United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251, 264 (4th Cir.1997) (indicating proof of interstate nexus is an element of criminal liability under CWA); United States v. Ahmad, 101 F.3d 386, 391 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a consent decree “is an agreement 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional (B) recognizing the existence of the special relationship (C) recognizing existence of two tests (D) recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements (E) holding that one of the essential elements of an abuse of process claim is the existence of an ulterior motive
Example Output: recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional

Example Input: amount and terms of the deductions ...” In case of any failure to pay wages due to an employee as required by Section 41-10-40 or 41-10-50 the employee may recover in a civil action an amount equal to three times the full amount of the unpaid wages, plus costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as the court may allow. § 41-10-80(C). The South Carolina Supreme Court has interpreted this treble damages provision to mean that the decision to award the penalty of treble damages is discretionary, and the penalty should not be imposed “if there is a good faith dispute over wages allegedly due.” Rice, 456 S.E.2d at 383. Fruehauf asks us to extend the requirement that there be a bona fide, good faith wage dispute to require that Wall show that Fruehauf willf 335 S.C. 598, 518 S.E.2d 591 (1999) (<HOLDING>); O’Neal v. Intermedical Hospital of South 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client (B) holding that the lack of a confidentiality agreement does not necessarily defeat an argument that information is a trade secret because where an employee acquires during the course of his employment a special technique or process developed by his employer he is under a duty not to use it to the detriment of his employer (C) holding that an attorney who breaches a fiduciary duty to a client forfeits his right to compensation without any requirement that the client prove actual harm (D) holding that an employee who breaches the duty of loyalty to his employer forfeits his right to compensation and creates a good faith dispute over the payment of his wages by virtue of his bad behavior (E) holding that when an employee is injured by his employers tortious conduct his employer owes him damages and compensation under the act
Example Output: recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client

Example Input: We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Cabrera contends that the district court did not adequately explain the reaso tantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169. L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district1 court did not abuse its discretion. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including not only Cabrera’s state prison sentence and efforts towards rehabilitation, but also his rejection of the fast-track plea agreement and his criminal history, which is entirely distinct from the offense at issue here. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; cf. United States v. Defterios, 343 F.3d 1020, 1023-24 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that delay in indictment may sometimes be a basis for a sentencing departure but holding that district court erred when it decreased sentence based on a delay in an indictment where the offenses were separate crimes distinct in time place and victims (B) holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient (C) holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence (D) recognizing that an indictment may be dismissed in part (E) holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense
Example Output:
holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient