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.

Ex Input:
unpublished decisions, “[njoticeably absent from the list of factors Pruitt instructs district courts to consider are the merits and substance of the pro se plaintiffs claim.” Rivera v. Kettle Moraine Correctional Inst., No. 14-C-6, 2014 WL 2875897, at *4 (E.D. Wis. June 24, 2014); Kennedy v. Huibregtse, No. 13-C-4, 2014 WL 4924662, at *15 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2014). On appeal from an adverse judgment in a case where the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion to recruit; the Court of Appeals will consider whether “there is a reasonable likelihood that the presence of counsel would have made a difference in the outcome of the litigation” in assessing whether the district court’s abuse of its discretion was prejudicial. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 659 (italics original r. 2002) (<HOLDING>); Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation (B) holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (C) holding that prisoner must allege acts or omissions evidencing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (D) holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs (E) holding that plaintiffs claim must have arguable merit meaning that plaintiffs allegations clearly state a nonfrivolous prima facie case of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and that the already established evidence indicates more than an extremely slim chance of success on the merits

Ex Output:
holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation


Ex Input:
of the evidence to have determined the outcome.” Id.; accord Snow v. State, 697 S.W.2d 663, 666-68 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985), pet. dism’d, 794 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). A “single egregious error” may constitute ineffective assistance. Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813. Frequently, it has. Texas Cases Reversing Without Evidence of Trial Strategy In at least 22 cases decided after the Court of Criminal Appeals decided Jackson v. State, Texas courts have reversed even though no evidence of trial counsel’s reasoning was presented. See Woods v. State, 59 S.W.3d 833, 835-38 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. filed); Mares v. State, 52 S.W.3d 886, 893 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001, pet. ref'd); Jaubert v. State, 65 S.W.3d 73 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. granted) (designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Robison v. State, 35 S.W.3d 257, 265 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing rule (B) recognizing a limited exception to the eightcorners rule for a pure coverage question where the insurer is not questioning the merits of the underlying thirdparty claim and the extrinsic evidence goes strictly to an issue of coverage without contradicting any allegation in the thirdparty claimants pleadings material to the merits of that underlying claim (C) recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court (D) holding that procedural bar rule does not apply to ineffectiveness claims (E) recognizing the rule in robinson and reviewing the merits of ineffectiveness claim without evidence of trial counsels strategy

Ex Output:
recognizing rule


Ex Input:
willingness to consider impermissible factors such as ... age ... while engaging in one set of presumably neutral employment decisions ... might tend to support an inference that such impermissible considerations may have entered into another area of ostensibly neutral employment decisions — here, an employee’s termination.” Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., 825 F.2d 593, 597-98 (1st Cir.1987). However, we agree with the district court that, standing alone, it is too remote in time to be linked with the decision to terminate Mulero. See Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir.1994) (finding that discriminatory comment made over two years prior to discharge was not evidence of age discrimination); Phelps v. Yale Security, Inc., 986 F.2d 1020, 1026 (6th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 861, 114 S.Ct. 175, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the litigation privilege did not preclude a malicious prosecution claim where the accusatorial statements that led to the plaintiffs arrest were made before the charges against him were filed and were not made during and were unrelated to the judicial proceeding (B) holding that statements that a company was recessionresistant and that it would maintain a high level of growth were too vague to constitute material statements of fact (C) holding that statement made eight months before employee was dismissed and one made at least ten months before were not too remote from the dismissal and thus properly admitted at trial as evidence of a discriminatory atmosphere where he who made the first statement may have participated in the decision to fire her and the other refused to block her termination (D) holding that statements made almost a year before layoff were too far removed to have influenced decision (E) holding that statements made in the course of negotiation were not contracts and such statements were merged into the final written agreement

Ex Output:

holding that the litigation privilege did not preclude a malicious prosecution claim where the accusatorial statements that led to the plaintiffs arrest were made before the charges against him were filed and were not made during and were unrelated to the judicial proceeding