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: the prescribed five working days after the registrant's birthday is not a defense. Barker, 34 Cal.4th at 350, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 260, 96 P.3d 507 ("forgetting the mandatory registration requirement of section 290 is simply not a legitimate defense to the charge of willfully failing to register”). As a result, it is possible that Gonzalez violated § 290(a)(1)(D) through ordinary negligence by forgetting to register during the mandated five working day period. Because the record suggests that Gonzalez made a good faith effort to comply with the registration law, we find that little or no moral culpability attaches to his violation of § 290(a)(1)(D). 11 . Gonzalez’s sentence is also a high multiple of the plea offers he received. See Reyes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 964, 969 n. 9 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). 12 . See, e.g., Rummel, 445 U.S. at 282, 100 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plea offers are relevant to determining whether a three strikes sentence is grossly disproportionate to the triggering offense (B) holding that penalty clauses are enforceable unless they are found to be grossly unreasonable (C) holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue (D) holding that sentencing court could consider whether the applicable guidelines were outdated and disproportionate but that imposing sentence based on the guidelines did not render sentence substantively unreasonable (E) holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining an accepted plea bargain must be recorded and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense

Answer: holding that penalty clauses are enforceable unless they are found to be grossly unreasonable


Question: the information provided in the Unplanned Deviation Reports and investigation reports was an accurate depiction of the incidents occurred, and Acevedo has not shown otherwise. Lastly, this Court notes that Ceinos rated Acevedo in 2005 as “Fully Met Expectations,” which evinces a lack of animus towards Acevedo, insofar as he was accorded positive review by Ceinos despite previous performance issues. In essence, Plaintiffs ask us to excuse Acevedo’s performance by replacing Ceinos’ business judgment with his own absent proof that his employer’s findings were inaccurate or misleading, which is an untenable position in light of the applicable case law. Velazquez-Fernandez v. NCE Foods, Inc., 476 F.3d 6, 12 (1st Cir.2007) (citing Webber v. Int’l Paper Co., 417 F.3d 229, 238 (1st Cir.2005)) (<HOLDING>). Ex-Lax’s hiring practices, disciplinary 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment (B) holding that an employees opinion of the efficacy of an employment decision standing alone cannot supplant the employers business judgment (C) holding that employers have standing to sue (D) holding employer cannot lawfully make the signing of an employment agreement which contains an unenforceable covenant not to compete a condition of continued employment an employers termination of an employee who refuses to sign such an agreement constitutes a wrongful termination in violation of public policy (E) holding that an employers sponsorship of an employees 01 visa does not establish an employment contract for a definite term

Answer: holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment


Question: dismissed Ms. Goren’s amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) for failure to plead fraud with particularity and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Specifically, the court held that, with respect to the RICO complaints against the Boreykos, Direct and October, the amended complaint failed to allege with particularity two predicate acts of fraud committed by those defendants. In addition, the court held that the amended complaint failed to adequately allege RICO claims against Dr. Wallaeh, Direct and October because that complaint did not allege that those defendants played some role in the direction of the New Vision enterprise. See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 607 U.S. 170, 177-78, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993) (<HOLDING>). II DISCUSSION We review de novo the district 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant who was associated with the enterprise and engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity when he repeatedly violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws was not liable under  1962c because he had no part in directing the enterprises affairs (B) holding that in order to plead adequate rico complaint plaintiff must allege that defendant had some part in the direction of the alleged enterprises affairs (C) holding that complaint must plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged (D) holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government (E) holding that to constitute an enterprise under rico the enterprises structure must provide some mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the group on an ongoing rather than an ad hoc basis

Answer:
holding that defendant who was associated with the enterprise and engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity when he repeatedly violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws was not liable under  1962c because he had no part in directing the enterprises affairs