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.

Ex Input:
511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In Landgraf, the Court noted that a statute only truly operates retroactively if applying it would “impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Id. 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also RTC v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 30 F.3d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir.1994)(analyzing retroactivity of lease repudiation damage limitation provision of FIRREA). Thus, like other courts that have analyzed similar FIRREA provisions, we must address prior banking law to determine whether application of the damage limitation provisions of § 1821(e)(3) would have the retroactive effect defined in Landgraf. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit, 30 F.3d at 1388 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that, in the Crafts’ case, it 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is not retroactive (B) holding that firreas damage limitations for repudiation of leases worked no substantive change in the law and thus their application was not retroactive (C) holding retroactive application (D) holding no retroactive application (E) recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary

Ex Output:
holding that the act is not retroactive


Ex Input:
Supreme Court rejected Cook’s claim of error on direct appeal, finding that the prosecutor’s comments were not directed at Cook’s decision not to testify, and that the comment about the videotape was invited by Cook’s cross-examination and argument. Cook, 821 P.2d at 741-43. The district court agreed that the comments were either comments on the state of the evidence or invited by Cook’s arguments and cross-examination. In addition, the district court found that, if there was error, it was harmless under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 631, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). Comment on the refusal to testify at trial violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (<HOLDING>). Also, a prosecutor’s comment on a defendant’s 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify (B) holding that it is improper for prosecutor to comment on accuseds postarrest silence (C) holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds silence during police custodial interrogation (D) holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds testimonial silence (E) holding that the fifth amendment  forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accuseds silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt

Ex Output:
recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify


Ex Input:
V. Conclusion We reverse the trial court’s judgment denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and the Aldermen and Mayor’s motion for summary judgment as to Elizabeth’s whis-tleblower claims. We render judgment that the City, Aldermen, and Mayor are immune from suit on Elizabeth’s whistle-blower claims. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. 1 . Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 554.001-.010 (Vernon 1994 & Supp.2001). 2 . City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 n. 1 (Tex.1993); see also City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653-54 (Tex.1994); Putthoff v. Ancrum, 934 S.W.2d 164, 168 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1996, writ denied). 3 . City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara, 904 S.W.2d 655, 656 (Tex.1995); Putthoff, 934 S.W.2d at 174 n. 2. Compare Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d at 812 (<HOLDING>). 4 . Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that city could not appeal based on sovereign rather than official immunity under section 510145 (B) holding that the sovereign immunity defense may be raised for the first time on appeal (C) holding that dismissal pursuant to a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity is with prejudice (D) holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity (E) holding that plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official

Ex Output:

holding that the sovereign immunity defense may be raised for the first time on appeal