instruction:
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.
question:
Leak should not have been admitted, because, they say, 1) its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value and 2) it was inadmissible under the general exclusionary rule. However, Tinsley and Tuscaloosa County did not object before the trial court based on these grounds. Because Tinsley and Tuscaloosa County failed to state these grounds for their objection, the alleged error was not preserved for appeal. Rule 103, Ala. R. Evid. The trial record shows that Tinsley and Tuscaloosa County based their objection to the testimony on a relevancy argument. They do not argue on appeal that the trial court erred in ruling that the evidence was relevant. Therefore, they have not presented any basis for appellate review on this issue. See Landreth v. State, 600 So.2d 440 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that summary judgment must be affirmed where multiple grounds are asserted and the appellant does not attack all grounds on appeal (B) holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered (C) holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified (D) holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal (E) holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal
answer:
holding that summary judgment must be affirmed where multiple grounds are asserted and the appellant does not attack all grounds on appeal


question:
defendant’s activities fall outside the FDCPA’s general provisions); Overton v. Foutty & Foutty, LLP, No. 1:07-cv0274-DFHTAB, 2007 WL 2413026, at *4 (S.D.Ind. Aug. 21, 2007) (recognizing majority position that party whose activities are limited to enforcement of security interests is not subject to all FDCPA requirements, and stating, ”[i]f a person invokes judicial remedies only to enforce the security interest in property, then the effort is not subject to the FDCPA (other than § 1692f(6) and § 1692i(a))[,] [b]ut if the person is also seeking additional relief, such as a personal judgment against the borrower, then the FDCPA applies.”) (collecting cases); Chomilo v. Shapiro, Nordmeyer & Zielke, LLP, Civ. No. 06-3103 (RHK/AJB), 2007 WL 2695795, at *6 (D.Minn. Sept. 12, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Acosta v. Campbell, No. 6:04CV761 ORL28DAB, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that law firm executing nonjudicial foreclosure pro ceeding was enforcing a security interest rather than collecting a debt and hence fell outside the ambit of the fdcpa except for the provisions of section 1692f6 (B) recognizing distinction between general debt collection and enforcement of a security interest and observing that by the plain language of  1692a6   a person whose business has the principal purpose of enforcing security interests but who does not otherwise satisfy the definition of a debt collector is subject only to  1692f6 (C) holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred  is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt (D) holding that the defendants actions in filing judicial foreclosure proceeding against mortgagor amounted to debt collection activity under the fdcpa and distinguishing decisions involving pursuit of nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings under a deed of trust from those in which a defendant has pursued judicial foreclosure proceedings which included seeking judgment on a note  by filing a lawsuit in state court (E) holding that back rent is debt under the fdcpa
answer:
recognizing distinction between general debt collection and enforcement of a security interest and observing that by the plain language of  1692a6   a person whose business has the principal purpose of enforcing security interests but who does not otherwise satisfy the definition of a debt collector is subject only to  1692f6


question:
that she had anything to do with the drugs other than move them down from the apartment to her car. While de la Cruz-Paulino admitted to helping carry “it” from the apartment to the car, responding to Salazar’s question, “Did you get it down?” with “Of course we did,” there is no evidence that de la Cruz-Paulino saw the packages inside the garbage bags until the time of her arrest. We see no basis for concluding that Díaz-Pérez cut de la Cruz-Paulino in on the drug transaction after soliciting her package-carrying services. Díaz-Pérez had a menial job that de la Cruz-Paulino was willing to do for $40; there was no need for Díaz-Pérez to cut de la Cruz-Paulino into the deal to obtain her package-carrying services. Cf. United, States v. Francomano, 554 F.2d 488, 487 (1st Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). The jury could not, without engaging in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that no hearing was required where there were written reports supporting defendants competency (B) holding that required drug testing of student who had been suspended for fighting was unconstitutional because there was no reasonable suspicion of drug use and no special needs requiring a suspicionless search distinguishing todd and vemonia on their facts (C) holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute (D) holding in the context of a promissory estoppel claim that reasonable businessmen could not have relied on a statement that they had a deal when so many terms of the transaction were up in the air (E) holding that there was no basis for a reasonable inference that the defendants were cut in on the drug deal when the record indicated that they were willing to perform the required crewmember services with no special inducement
answer:

holding that no hearing was required where there were written reports supporting defendants competency