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: CURIAM: Michael Disch appeals his convictions for mailing threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c), and making false statements to an FBI agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Disch argues that the district court judge was required to recuse himself sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b). Ordinarily, we review a judge’s decision not to recuse himself under § 455(a) and § 455(b) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir.1999); see also Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1527-28 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). However, when a defendant fails to seek 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error (B) holding that a  455b violation is subject to harmless error review (C) holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error (D) holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review (E) holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis
Example Output: holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error

Example Input: objectively by a reasonable person. Cooper v. Albacore Holdings, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 238, 244-45 (Mo.App.E.D.2006). Here, the trial court found that the Employer’s alleged conduct was not sufficient as a matter of law to objectively establish severe or pervasive hostility based on a disability. Whether “a reasonable person would objectively consider [an employer’s] behavior towards [a claimant] severe enough to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment” is a question of fact. Cooper, 204 S.W.3d at 245; see also Howard, 149 F.3d at 840; 37 William C established, whether a reasonable person would similarly find the conduct offensive will generally be a question of fact for the jury. Cf. Meyerkord v. Zipatoni Co., 276 S.W.3d 319, 326 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) (<HOLDING>); Y.G. v. Jewish Hasp, of St. Louis, 795 S.W.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave (B) holding that whether misrepresentations would be highly offensive to a reasonable person are questions for a jury (C) holding that questions of proximate cause are within the exclusive domain for the jury and may only be removed when reasonable minds cannot differ (D) holding in determining whether driver was insured under terms of policy exclusion of person using vehicle without a reasonable belief person was entitled to do so must be considered (E) holding that whether an encounter is consensual hinges on whether a reasonable person would have felt free to disregard the police and go about his business
Example Output: holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave

Example Input: timely and compliant suspension letter). The effect of enforcing the Act’s mandatory procedures as written does not deprive non-compliant claimants of rights they had at common law or that exist outside of the Act; rather, the only effect of failing to fulfill the Act’s statutory prerequisites is that the claimant may not receive the benefits otherwise available under the Act. Cf. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d at 492-96 (declining to construe failure to comply with promptness requirement to bar suit on common law cause of action). And because the right to compensation Blair seeks is created by the Act and did not exist at common law, the Open Courts provision of the Texas Constitution is not implicated. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 13; see also Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661, 665-66 (Tex.1983) (<HOLDING>). 4. Application Blair failed to comply with 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if no notice was given prior to the institution of an action a condition precedent to the right to bring the action does not exist and the buyerplaintiff has lost the right of his remedy (B) holding that the right to bring a wellestablished common law cause of action cannot be effectively abrogated by the legislature absent a showing that the legislative basis for the statute outweighs the denial of the constitutionallyguaranteed right of redress (C) holding that the statutes abrogated the common law (D) recognizing the cause of action (E) holding that the statute in question served to modify prior common law and that the legislature was empowered to make such changes in the common law based on the public interest
Example Output:
holding that if no notice was given prior to the institution of an action a condition precedent to the right to bring the action does not exist and the buyerplaintiff has lost the right of his remedy