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:
would allow for the award of attorney fees whenever a statute or contract provides for one side to pay expenses, even when such attorney fees were not contemplated. The majority opinion sets a dangerous precedent in this regard. Therefore, I do not join in the majority’s opinion that the term “expenses” as used in section 13-7-4(d) includes attorney fees, but would hold that because that section does not specifically provide for an award of attorney fees, such award was improper here. For the reasons stated above, I concur in the majority’s determination that the trial court improperly awarded attorney fees to defendant Newspaper Agency Corporation. However, I dissent rs of Am. v. Champion Int’l Corp., 790 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir.1986); In re Olliff, 258 Ga. 157, 366 S.E.2d 289, 289 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Head v. Savage, Minn., 255 N.W.2d 32, 38 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid (B) holding that costs and expenses are to considerable degree synonymous (C) holding that the bankruptcy court properly disallowed fees when the bank could not demonstrate actual costs and expenses beyond its normal operating costs attributable to the debtors loan (D) holding that federal express costs telephone expenses and postage expenses did not qualify as taxable costs (E) holding that expenses refers to costs

Ex Output:
holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid


Ex Input:
where the-plaintiff seeks to subject private parties to § 1983 liability by bestowing on them the title of state actors. The instant case does not involve a situation where the State has “ ‘so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with the [private party] that it was a joint participant in the enterprise.’ ” Harvey, 949 F.2d at 1131 (quoting NBC ¶. Communications Workers of Am., AFL-CIO, 860 F.2d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir.1988) (citation omitted)). The Eleventh Circuit in Harvey, confronting facts similar to the case at bar and the issue of whether involuntary commitment by private parties may be considered state action, found an insufficient nexus between the defendants, a private hospital and private physicians, and the State. See id.; see also Rockwell, 26 F.3d at 258 (<HOLDING>). The court observed that “[b]oth the Supreme 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that ccmc and its employees were not state actors under either the symbiotic relationship or close nexus test (B) holding that massachusetts statute did not create a sufficiently close nexus between private hospital and the state to warrant labeling private actors state actors (C) holding that foster parents are not state actors (D) holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability (E) holding that private hospital and physicians who involuntarily committed plaintiff under massachusetts statute were not state actors noting that state regulation even if extensive and receipt of federal funds do not establish state action

Ex Output:
holding that ccmc and its employees were not state actors under either the symbiotic relationship or close nexus test


Ex Input:
Cir.1991), we will not craft petitioner’s arguments for him where his allegations are conclusory in nature. Id. Finally, we note that the majority of petitioner’s brief to this court concerns not the arguments discussed above but, instead, his struggle reconciling his sexual orientation with his deep Christian beliefs, and his assertion that he would be persecuted if he were returned to China on the basis of those Christian beliefs. But petitioner never raised religion as a ground for asylum in the administrative proceedings and we may not address it for the first time here. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring an alien to exhaust all administrative remedies available to him prior to court review of a final removal order); Garcia-Carbajal v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1233, 1237 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). The petition for review is DENIED. * After 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia (B) holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte (C) holding the bia may in its discretion grant a motion to continue or reopen to allow an alien to pursue adjustment of status before the uscis (D) holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte (E) holding that to satisfy  1252d1 an alien must present the same specific legal theory to the bia before he or she may advance it in court

Ex Output:

holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia