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: judicial review of an arbitration award. See UHC Management Co., 148 F.3d at 998 (“ “We may not set an award aside simply because ... the arbitrators erred in interpreting the law or in determining the facts.’ ”) (quoting Stroh Container Co., 783 F.2d at 751). This third challenge is nonetheless partially cognizable, but only to the extent it can be read as an assertion that there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, a statutory ground under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2), as a claim of misconduct by the arbitrators in refusing to hear evidence or to provide a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, another statutory ground under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3), or as an extra-statutory challenge to the “fundamental fairness” of the proceedings. See P & P Indus., Inc., 179 F.3d at 870 (<HOLDING>). Hoffman’s fourth challenge is to the denial 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing such a ground for judicial review of arbitration awards in this circuit (B) holding right to be fundamental (C) holding that section 34810 is an adequate and independent state ground (D) recognizing plain or fundamental error (E) recognizing review for fundamental unfairness of the proceedings as an independent extrastatutory ground

A: recognizing such a ground for judicial review of arbitration awards in this circuit
****
Q: method (under § 3663) in favor of an incorrect method (under § 1593), the district court erred. Moreover, we hold that the district court’s error was “plain,” because the statutes are clear and because the government openly admitted that its proposed methodology derived from the wrong restitution statute. See United States v. Tuyet Thi-Bach Nguyen, 565 F.3d 668, 677 (9th Cir.2009) (“An error is plain when it is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious’ under the law.”). Finally, we hold that the error affected Defendants’ substantial rights and affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. The government did not present evidence — and the district court did not make findings — of the victims’ actual losses, as required by § 3663. See Bussell, 504 F.3d at 964 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Joyner, 201 F.3d 61, 81 (2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that restitution is proper under  2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses (B) holding that restitution is proper for victims losses that are directly caused by appellants conduct for which he was convicted (C) holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc  3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction (D) holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses  (E) holding that restitution in the full amount of each victims losses does not exceed the statutory maximum

A: holding that restitution is proper under  2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses
****
Q: goes to voluntariness The Court: Yeah. Crook: As I understand it. Hedgepeth (counsel for State): Well, as I understand it, it does too, but that’s what I want defense counsel to say on the record that he agrees that’s the way our courts ruled that that’s correct and we do not have to have every officer that was involved in everything. ¶ 17. The State submits that these exchanges indicate Sanders’s repeated and absolute waiver of the issue of the volun-tariness of her statement and was strictly based on whether Sanders had requested the presence of a lawyer during questioning. The State responds that Sanders never put on the evidence and expressly declined to attempt to produce evidence sufficient to invoke the Agee evidentiary rule. Hogan v. State, 730 So.2d 94, 98 (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Further, the State submits that once the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that agee applies only where defendant has alleged that his confession was induced by threats or promises (B) holding that confession was not induced from an improper promise where competent evidence supports the trial courts finding that the interviewing officer made no promises during the interrogation (C) holding that confession was involuntary where suspect was a few days short of his sixteenth birthday was questioned for at least four hours prior to his first confession and was not accompanied by counsel friends or family where defendants made no showing that petitioner acted coolly or callously during questioning or that he had past experiences with the police and where police made promises of leniency (D) holding that implicit threats or promises did not render a defendants statement involuntary when a review of the circumstances reveals that the defendants independent will was not overcome so as to induce a confession that he was not otherwise disposed to malee internal quotation marks omitted (E) holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession

A:
holding that confession was not induced from an improper promise where competent evidence supports the trial courts finding that the interviewing officer made no promises during the interrogation
****