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]: the jury during final jury instructions not to consider any testimony it had stricken or ordered the jury to disregard during trial. See United States v. Liburd, 607 F.3d 339, 344, 53 V.I. 890 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[W]hile curative instructions cannot repair every error, we do generally presume that juries follow their instructions.”). Finally, as discussed above in section B, the People presented overwhelming evidence that Augustine was the individual who pulled a gun and started shooting at Officers Greaves, Wharton, and Allen. Based on these factors, Officer Wharton’s statement — given in response to a question — would not have been sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial even if Augustine’s attorney had requested one at trial. See Ethridge v. State, 418 P.2d 95, 100 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the Superior Court did 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt (B) holding mistrial not warranted for improper statement by police officer where court sustained defendants objection and admonished jury to disregard statement and where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt (C) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question (D) holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection  and admonished the jury to disregard the statement (E) holding that while the prosecutors question was improper in light of the overwhelming evidence there was no reversible error in the denial of defendants motion for mistrial
[A]: holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt


[Q]: for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const, amend. V. 16 . Plaintiffs’ April 3, 2009 Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs never received a Notice of Deficiency for any of the tax years at issue. Compl. at 2. Plaintiffs, however, attached a copy of a Notice of Deficiency for 1997 and 1998 in their Petition to the Tax Court challenging the deficiency determinations for these years. Gov't Mot. Ex. C. Further, Plaintiffs did not dispute their receipt of a Notice of Deficiency at the November 15, 2002 CDP hearing. Gov’t Mot. Exs. E, G, H. Section 2514 of Title 28 of the United States Code requires forfeiture of a tax claim when a party attempts to establish its claim through fraud. 28 U.S.C. § 2514; see also Standard Oil v. United States, 98 Ct.Cl. 201, 246, 47 F.Supp. 120 (1942) (<HOLDING>); see also Kamen Soap Products v. United 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs claim for refund of corporate income taxes was forfeited when plaintiff presented forged corporate minutes to the irs with the knowledge they were forged (B) holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors (C) holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract (D) holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter (E) holding that grand jury testimony of officer and inhouse counsel for corporate defendant was properly admitted as admission against the corporate defendant
[A]: holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors


[Q]: to seek applicants from persons with complainant's qualifications. McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817.; see also Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507, 512-13 (5th Cir.2001) (addressing a racial discrimination claim). 16 . McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. 17 . McMillian v. Svetanoff, 878 F.2d 186, 189 (7th Cir.1989) (noting that "[a]n employer, even a public employer ... is free to choose among qualified candidates so long as that choice is not based on unlawful criteria”) (citing Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)). 18 . See Deines v. Tex. Dep't Protective & Regulatory Servs., 164 F.3d 277, 282 (5th Cir.1999). Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 19 . 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301-6578. 20 . Price, 283 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established (B) holding that expert was qualified to testify regarding sexuallyabused children based on witness education professional license and experience (C) holding that better education work experience and longer tenure with the company do not establish that an applicant is clearly better qualified (D) holding plaintiff with nineteen years experience as hospital assistant and bachelors and masters degrees to be significantly better qualified for pharmacy technician position than applicant with no college education and two months relevant experience (E) holding that the applicant failed to satisfy the statute because the applicant did not have an ownership right or access right to the reservoir site
[A]:
holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established