TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: interests that a lawful permanent resident or even an illegal entrant residing more than two weeks may have developed.... Diaz Rodriguez has not shown that he has been lawfully admitted, so the due process rights of a lawfully admitted citizen are not implicated here.”). Accordingly, Petitioner has no constitutional due process rights in relation to her admission beyond that authorized by Congress. The restricted habeas review provisions set forth in Section 1252 adequately protect Petitioner’s rights because she has a meaningful review of the cause for her exclusion and of the Executive’s power to exclude her. The writ therefore has not been suspended and the Court lacks jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s claims. See Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1140-41; Lorenzo, 508 F.3d at 1281 (<HOLDING>); Vaupel, 244 Fed.Appx. at 895 (holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that section 1252e2 clearly does not permit court to review whether expedited removal statute applies in first place (B) holding that court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review aliens habeas claims seeking review of expedited removal order including whether expedited removal statute was lawfully applied to alien and whether expedited removal procedures violated his right to due process because language of section 1252e5 clearly precludes review in habeas proceedings of whether alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal (C) holding that strict limitations set forth in section 1252e preclude judicial review of any constitutional or statutory claims related to the underlying expedited removal order (D) holding that  1252a2a barred review of petitioners claims including asapplied due process challenges to expedited removal order (E) holding prior to enactment of section 1326d that a person charged with illegal reentry has a constitutional right to collaterally attack the underlying removal order when a due process violation in a removal proceeding amounts to a complete deprivation of judicial review

SOLUTION: holding that section 1252e2 clearly does not permit court to review whether expedited removal statute applies in first place

PROBLEM: subpoena does not fit within the statutory language. The question surrounding the subpoena’s validity in no way relates to any information that Star Bank would be required to disclose under FCRA, even assuming that FCRA’s requirements apply to Star Bank. {See 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f) for the definition of a “consumer reporting agency.”) The Hahns’ claimed reliance on whatever Bonynge said regarding the subpoena therefore provides them with no basis to toll the two year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Hahns have failed to demonstrate that the wilful misrepresentation tolling exception applies to their case. We therefore hold that all of their claims raised under FCRA are barred by the statute of limitations. See Rylewicz v. Beaton Servs., Ltd., 888 F.2d 1175, 1181 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). We find no inequity in reaching this result. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the uccs fouryear statute of limitations provision which barred an action by the plaintiff did not bar a thirdparty contribution and indemnity claim (B) holding that equitable tolling is available to avoid time limitations in the statutory provisions governing veterans benefits (C) holding that parents were not entitled to use infancy tolling provisions and that the statute of limitations barred their claims (D) holding that an ohio tolling statute violated the commerce clause because it gave nonresident corporations the choice between being subject to general jurisdiction in the state by appointing an instate agent for service of process or being subject to a tolling of the statute of limitations on claims against them (E) holding that a plaintiff must fit within the precise wording of the tolling exception to avoid being barred by fcras statute of limitations provision

SOLUTION: holding that the uccs fouryear statute of limitations provision which barred an action by the plaintiff did not bar a thirdparty contribution and indemnity claim

PROBLEM: U.S. 266, 277, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002)). 16 . 529 U.S. 266, 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000). 17 . Id. at 268, 120 S.Ct. 1375. 18 . Id. 19 . Id. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375. 20 . United States v. Martinez, 486 F.3d 855, 861 (5th Cir.2007). 21 . See id. 22 . United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir.1995). 23 . Id. 24 . See id. 25 . United States v. Waldrop, 404 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir.2005) (citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). 26 . United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 158 (5th Cir.2005). 27 . United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263, 284 n. 91 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Puckett v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009)). 28 . Id. 29 . See De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d at 159 (<HOLDING>). 30 . See 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2). 31 . United 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the incriminating nature of a gun was apparent when officers were responding to charges that the defendants were holding aliens against their will (B) holding that trial court did not err (C) holding that district court did not err in concluding after an evidentiary hearing that the immunity agreement between defendant and the government did not extend to the charge being prosecuted (D) holding that the incriminating nature of an item was immediately apparent where the police officers had probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime (E) holding that a district court did not err in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure due to his status as an alien subject to removal

SOLUTION:
holding that trial court did not err