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.

Q: however, had received the full procedural due process to which he was entitled for the 1996 events to which the court was referring. The events, in fact, culminated in a decision and order of the Lincoln County Appeal Board calling for Pratt’s reinstatement. Defendants, therefore, are entitled to a summary judgment on this issue. Furthermore, because the LCPO has been dissolved, the issue of Pratt’s employment status, particularly after he was reinstated, is now moot. B. Constitutionally Protectable Property Interest Neither Exists In Pratt’s Job Duties Nor In Pratt’s Suspension When Such Suspension Is With Pay. [¶ 19] Pratt argues the defendants are not entitled to a qualified immunity because the defendants obstructed the reinstatement order of the Appeal Board -42 (4th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Fields v. Durham, 909 F.2d 94, 98 (4th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that under article i section 9 a person has no constitutionally protected privacy interest in abandoned property (B) holding inmates possess a constitutionally cognizable property interest in the interest earned on money held in their prison accounts (C) holding that sovereign immunity does not protect the state from claims for statutory employment benefits that constitute a protected property interest (D) holding that constitutionally protected property interest in employment does not extend to right to possess and retain particular job or to perform particular services (E) holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest

A: holding that under article i section 9 a person has no constitutionally protected privacy interest in abandoned property
****
Q: with a total of 8.3 grams of cocaine in them was consistent with both an intent to sell and with personal use. Id. at 631. We noted that the police did not find any money or drug paraphernalia on the defendant and there were “no other facts which would suggest an intent to sell.” Id. The packaging and weight of the drugs in this case is similar to that in Valentin, giving rise to similar conclusions about Alleyne’s intent. The state attempts to distinguish Valentin in two ways. First, there was no money found on Valentin, while Alleyne had $36 in his pocket and another $20 found in the paper bag with the marijuana. However, neither the amount of money found, nor the denominations of it were inconsistent with personal use. See Williams v. State, 569 So.2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>). Second, while the arresting officer in 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell (B) holding no unfair prejudice from admission of conviction for possession of 50 to 200 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute as evidence of intent to distribute cocaine (C) holding that evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction of front seat passenger of possession with intent to distribute marijuana in paper bag in foot well of volkswagen on passengers side near gearshift in presence of marijuana smoke (D) holding that evidence consisting of 10 pieces of cocaine marijuana rolling paper 72 and a weapon was not sufficient to prove intent to sell (E) holding that there was sufficient evidence of intent to sell or deliver where the defendant was in possession of one large cocaine rock and eight smaller rocks

A: recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell
****
Q: the trial court’s order granting Schultheis’ land use appeal and remanding the matter to the Board. Specifically, the Board argues that it correctly denied Schultheis’ Preliminary Plan application, pointing out that the application did not comport with the SLD Ordinance, that the application was incomplete and that critical data was not submitted timely. Further, the Board contends that these deficiencies were not minor technicalities but, rather, were substantive defects. The Board also argues that it acted in good faith in denying Schultheis’ Preliminary Plan because the Township provided Schultheis with notice of the defects five months prior to the filing of his Preliminary Plan, and seven months prior to the Board’s rejection of the Preliminary Plan; yet, .2d 814 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (<HOLDING>); Housing Authority of City of York v. Ismond, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable (B) holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment (C) holding that portion of interlocutory order requiring a new hearing rather than basing decision on the proceedings before the hearing officer was appealable but that the employees due process claims regarding reinstatement and back pay could be addressed on appeal from a final order (D) holding order granting a new trial is not a final appealable order because it does not terminate the action or any of the claims or parties in the action (E) holding that this court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court order which remanded the case so that a new hearing examiner could be appointed and a new hearing conducted where the appellant raised the issue of commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions during the original hearing

A:
holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable
****