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: acted outside their jurisdiction. In sum, none of Pasiewicz’s arguments show that Sandahl and Henning violated the Constitution when they arrested him. They and the other officers (Johnson in particular) certainly could have, and we think should have, proceeded with more caution. They get no commendation ribbons for the way they handled this case. Pasiewicz’s claim against the forest preserve district (even assuming it’s a suable entity) for failure to train or supervise its officers properly regarding the laws of search, seizure, and jurisdiction is a born loser. Because the officers did not violate Pasiewicz’s constitutional rights, he did not suffer constitutional injury. Accordingly, under City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed. 1412 (D.D.C.1983) (<HOLDING>), it is worth pointing out that Ross involved 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that knockandannounce principle is an element of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry because we have little doubt that the framers of the fourth amendment thought that the method of an officers entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search and seizure (B) holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment (C) holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment (D) holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment (E) holding that the concept of reasonableness in the fourth amendment logically presupposes an exercise of lawful authority by a police officer
Example Output: holding that knockandannounce principle is an element of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry because we have little doubt that the framers of the fourth amendment thought that the method of an officers entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search and seizure

Example Input: cap in determining the amount of benefits another person was able to receive. Id. at 615. Although in Parisi, the child was suffering from the technical entitlement, the case stands for the proposition that a technical entitlement of zero should be counted as zero when computing family máximums. Considering that the purpose of the family maximum is to set a maximum that can be given from one wage earner’s account, Parisi complies with this purpose. IV. BY CITING PARISI, HAS PLAINTIFF RAISED A NEW ISSUE THAT IS NOT PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THIS JUDICIAL REVIEW? “[I]f petitioner wishes to preserve an issue for appeal, he must first raise it in the proper administrative forum_” Tejeda-Mata v. INS, 626 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir.1980); See Chung Young Chew v. Boyd, 309 F.2d 857, 861 (9th Cir.1962) (<HOLDING>). Yet, in Tejeda-Mata the court held this “in 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that failure to observe the required process deprives the court of jurisdiction (B) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review because the aliens did not appeal the ijs denial of their motion to reopen to the board resulting in failure to exhaust their administrative remedies (C) holding that partys failure to file a timely internal administrative appeal as required by regulations of the department of agriculture constituted failure to exhaust administrative remedies and precluded judicial action (D) recognizing that failure by state to provide the required certification deprives appeals court of jurisdiction over appeal (E) holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review
Example Output: recognizing that failure to observe the required process deprives the court of jurisdiction

Example Input: exculpatory DNA evidence would prove his innocence under Article 64.03(a)(2)(A).”). 55 . In Whitaker v. State, 160 S.W.3d 5 (Tex.Crim.App.2004), we held that testing blood found on the gun used as the murder weapon and finding that it did not belong to the defendant in a case involving three conspirators would not be exculpatory since the blood could have belonged to the victim or one of the other co-conspirators, or it could have been left on the rifle prior to the murder. Id. at 9. 56 . See, e.g., Prible v. State, 245 S.W.3d 466, 470 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) ("without more, the presence of another person's DNA at the crime scene would not constitute affirmative evidence of the appellant’s innocence” requiring relief under Chapter 64); Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301, 306 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). 57 . Rivera, 89 S.W.3d at 60. 58 . Tex.Code 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence of another persons dna if found on hair cigarette butt and bloodstained bath mat collected from crime scene does not constitute affirmative exculpatory evidence (B) holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant (C) holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence (D) holding that a new trial was necessary due to the petitioners counsels failure to seek dna testing on hairs gathered from the crime scene (E) holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence
Example Output:
holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant