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]: such equitable relief as may be appropriate. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1). A. Serious Health Condition Wells Fargo first argues that Vincent did not suffer a “serious health condition” as that term is defined by the FMLA. The parties agree that the Court should examine the regulations implementing the FMLA in order to determine whether Vincent suffered from a serious health condition. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the interim regulations or the final regulations, which became effective on April 6, 1995, should be used by the Court in arriving at its determination. The Court finds that the interim regulations which were in effect in January of 1995, the time of Vincent’s termination, govern this action. See Gay v. Gilman Paper Company, 125 F.3d 1432, 1434 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Having resolved the dispute as to which set 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it (B) holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue (C) holding that the interim regulations governed a dispute in which the serious health condition and subsequent termination occurred prior to april 6 1995 the effective date of the final regulations (D) holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997 (E) holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996
[A]: holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it


[Q]: to two judicially cognizable interests. Id. at 560. First, the partisan-elections regime makes the process of getting on the general-election ballot more costly and time consuming. As Nix argues, courts have recognized that “[s]uch ballot-access requirements impose an ‘injury-in-faet,’ not only because non-compliance prevents ‘candidates’ from ‘appearing] on the ... ballot,’ but also because even compliance requires ‘significant amounts of time, money, personnel, and energy,’ which are limited ‘campaign resources’ that could have been ‘allocate[d]’ elsewhere.” Appellants’ Opening Br. 19-20 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851, 856-58 (7th Cir. 2000)); see also Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 738 n. 9, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Second, Nix alleges that Kinston’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search (B) holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance (C) holding that candidates had ample standing to challenge ballotaccess requirements (D) holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract (E) holding that candidates had standing to challenge requirements for appearing on the generalelection ballot as independents even though they could have chosen to run in a party primary
[A]: holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search


[Q]: 1216, 1218 (10th Cir. 2004); Kennedy v. Lubar, 273 F.3d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir.2001). In this case, the court did not remand based on § 1447(c), but rather on the basis that it was declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendent state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Review of a district court’s discretionary decision to remand under § 1367(c)(3) is not treated as a § 1447(c) remand, and therefore it is not subject to § 1447(d)’s statutory bar to review. Pacificare of Okla., Inc. v. Burrage, 59 F.3d 151, 152-53 (10th Cir.1995). As a logical corollary, then, § 1447(d) likewise does not deprive this court of jurisdiction to reconsider its prior orders in this case. See Hudson United Bank v. LiTenda Mortgage Corp., 142 F.3d 151, 158 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a district courts power to remand pendent state claims to state court is inherent in statutory authorization to decline supplemental jurisdiction under  1367c (B) holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss (C) holding the district court retained jurisdiction to reconsider its order granting the defendants motion to dismiss notwithstanding the fact that the district court had remanded the remaining pendent state claims to state court pursuant to 28 usc  1367c (D) holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court (E) holding that district court appropriately retained pendent jurisdiction over state claims where it had invested time and resources in the case
[A]:
holding a district courts power to remand pendent state claims to state court is inherent in statutory authorization to decline supplemental jurisdiction under  1367c