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: contract claims under general liability policies. See Keystone Filler & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. American Mining Ins. Co., 179 F.Supp.2d 432 (M.D.Pa.2002); Redevelopment Auth. of Cambria County v. Int’l Ins. Co., 454 Pa.Super. 374, 685 A.2d 581 (1996) (en banc); see also Augenblick v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 99-3419, 1999 WL 975118 (E.D.Pa. Oct.8, 1999). General liability policies provide the insured coverage for personal injury or property damage resulting from an “occurrence,” and are intended “to protect the insured from liability fo e in Redevelopment Authority — that there is no ‘occurrence’ if the underlying claim is one merely for breach-of-contract — has been followed by numerous state and federal courts sitting in Pennsylvania.”) (citing cases); Augenblick, 1999 WL 975118, at *2, 5 (<HOLDING>). In contrast to those cases, U.S. Specialty’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that law will not permit insured to profit from his own breach of contract when insured disregarded his contractual obligation to cooperate with insurer (B) holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract (C) holding that insureds breach of contract suit against insurer raised a coverage issue which was not settled by insurers payment of only part of what insured was claiming in breach of contract action (D) holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract (E) holding insurer did not have to cover insured for a breach of contract because it was not an accident
Example Output: holding that law will not permit insured to profit from his own breach of contract when insured disregarded his contractual obligation to cooperate with insurer

Example Input: from the publisher. The United States Supreme Court has held that a New York City correctional facility rule prohibiting the receipt of hardcover books unless mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores is constitutional. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 550, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The correctional facility argued the rule was designed to promote security and order at the facility. Id. at 544, 99 S.Ct. 1861. The Supreme Court agreed, stating this “limited restriction is a rational response by prison officials to an obvious security problem.” Id. at 550, 99 S.Ct. 1861. The Court agreed that hardcover books were especially convenient tools for smuggling contraband such as money, drugs, and weapons into a correctional facility and that these books are (<HOLDING>); Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 272 F.Supp.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (B) holding that prison administration may infringe upon prisoners first amendment rights as long as the infringement is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest (C) holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population (D) holding a publisheronly rule was constitutional because prison administrators are accorded deference and rule was reasonably related to the penological interest of maintaining internal prison security (E) holding that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests
Example Output: holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests

Example Input: the disposition of appellee’s remaining claims. NIGRO, J., files a concurring opinion. CAPPY, J., concurs in the result. 1 . 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16). 2 . 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 3 . 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3). Appellee struck Officer Eberlein in the nose during the struggle. 4 . 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104. 5 . This instruction regarding the jury's obligation to reach an agreement is in complete harmony with the American Bar Association’s approved instruction which this Court specifically recommended in Commonwealth v. Spencer, 442 Pa. 328, 337-38, 275 A.2d 299, 304-05 (1971). 6 . In so doing, the Superior Court found it unnecessary to address other issues raised on appeal. 7 . This Court may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte. Commonwealth v. Triplett, 476 Pa. 83, 89, 381 A.2d 877, 881 (1977) (<HOLDING>). 8 . There are comparable rules requiring 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue (B) holding lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction is fundamental error that this court may properly raise and recognize sua sponte (C) holding that a court can raise the issue of res judicata sua sponte in order to affirm a grant of summary judgment (D) holding that the district court had no right to apply the statute of limitations sua sponte because it had been waived (E) holding that although the issue of waiver as to the appellants allegation of trial court error had not been addressed by either party this court could raise the issue of waiver sua sponte
Example Output:
holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue