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]: state witnesses regarding their credibility during the course of the trial in chief. Angela Sweat had negotiated with state prosecution involving armed robbery charges, the facts of the plea agreement for impeachment was not permitted by the trial court. This witness was the sole evidence against the petitioner and had the jury known of her motive to lie they would have found me not guilty of the armed robbery charges. This was a denial of my right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the jury would have found me not guilty. Generally, federal courts should not review a state trial judge’s rulings with respect to the admissibility of evidence. Shaw v. Boney, 695 F.2d 528, 530 (11th Cir.1983). Even if the trial court’ h Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Evidentiary rulings are within the broad 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge (B) holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity (C) holding that denigrating insanity defense was inappropriate (D) holding that where the sole defense was insanity excluded testimony was material a crucial critical and highly significant factor (E) holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense
[A]: holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge


[Q]: such equitable relief as may be appropriate. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1). A. Serious Health Condition Wells Fargo first argues that Vincent did not suffer a “serious health condition” as that term is defined by the FMLA. The parties agree that the Court should examine the regulations implementing the FMLA in order to determine whether Vincent suffered from a serious health condition. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the interim regulations or the final regulations, which became effective on April 6, 1995, should be used by the Court in arriving at its determination. The Court finds that the interim regulations which were in effect in January of 1995, the time of Vincent’s termination, govern this action. See Gay v. Gilman Paper Company, 125 F.3d 1432, 1434 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Having resolved the dispute as to which set 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it (B) holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue (C) holding that the interim regulations governed a dispute in which the serious health condition and subsequent termination occurred prior to april 6 1995 the effective date of the final regulations (D) holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997 (E) holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996
[A]: holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it


[Q]: his relatively straightforward FOIA case unaided, the magistrate did not need to go any further. In addition, we reject Willis’s contention that the court erred in selecting Local Civil Rule 83.11 as the appropriate standard rather than Poindexter’s multifactor test. The Poindexter criteria are the plaintiffs ability to afford an attorney; the merits of the plaintiffs case; plaintiffs efforts to secure counsel; and the capacity of the plaintiff to present the case adequately without the aid of counsel. 737 F.2d at 1185 be considered include the indigent’s ability to conduct whatever factual investigation is necessary, the complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the capability of the indigent litigant to present the case); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Because the district court acted within its 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a 22month delay was particularly understandable and largely neutral with respect to the first barker factor given the presence of multiple defendants the large number of allegations and the complexity of the charges and evidence (B) holding that although the guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark of calculating a proper sentence the district court should then consider all of the  3553a factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party (C) holding that when evaluating a settlement agreement the court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the parties nor is it to run consideration of the adequacy of the settlement into a trial or a rehearsal of the trial  rather the cjourts responsibility is to reach an intelligent and objective opinion of the ultimate success should the claims be litigated and to form an educated estimate of the complexity expense and likely duration of such litigation and all other factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise (D) holding that representation by counsel until the first day of trial likely exposed the defndant to the complexity of his case and the legal process (E) holding that courts should consider a number of factors including the type and complexity of the case and whether the indigent is capable of adequately presenting the case
[A]:
holding that a 22month delay was particularly understandable and largely neutral with respect to the first barker factor given the presence of multiple defendants the large number of allegations and the complexity of the charges and evidence