TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: WTT Project area as defined by the Corps. NEF contends that we need not consider the State’s argument because the State failed to raise this argument in its initial motion to clarify, instead raising it for the first time in its Rule 59(e) motion. “Rule 59(e) motions are ‘aimed at reconsideration, not initial consideration.’ ” FDIC v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992) (quoting Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Bank of New England, 897 F.2d 611, 616 (1st Cir.1990)). In World University, this Court held that the defendant’s argument, which it raised for the first time in a Rule 59(e) motion, was barred where there was no reason why the defendant could not have presented its argument prior to its motion to alter or amend the judgment. Id.; see also Engler, 146 F.3d at 374 (<HOLDING>). This rule, however, does not cover the facts 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument (B) holding that a party in a habeas case waives an argument by failing to raise it before the district court (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (D) holding that an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion (E) holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court

SOLUTION: holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument

PROBLEM: in Bowman were appointed by the court to make educational decisions for children who were wards of the district, so that the advocates effectively acted as “parents” under the IDEA. See id. Accordingly, even though they were licensed attorneys, they could not recover fees as educational advocates because they were not acting in an attorney-client capacity. See id. Pressley distinguishes from this scenario because she was employed by the Chris Anwah Law Firm, instead of being appointed by the court as an advocate. See Adewusi Deck ¶ 1. Furthermore, Pressley’s work on this matter was similar to that performed by the billing attorneys. See PL’s Mot., Ex. B. Yet because she is not a member of the D.C. Bar, Pressley is not entitled to attorney rates. See Dickens, 724 F.Supp.2d at 120 (<HOLDING>); Agapito v. District of Columbia, 477 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees (B) holding that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in considering the prevailing hourly rates in the southern district of new york when awarding attorneys fees (C) holding that lexis fees are not taxable as costs but reserving ruling on whether such fees are recoverable as attorneys fees (D) holding that attorneys not admitted to the dc bar are not entitled to reimbursement but awarding fees at paralegal rates as equitable relief (E) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it was filed before the final order awarding attorneys fees

SOLUTION: holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees

PROBLEM: concerning, the merit system principles contained in section 2301.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(ll). For most federal employees, section 2302(b)(ll) would give the OSC jurisdiction over complaints concerning specified personnel actions taken in violation of the rules and/or regulations promulgated under the CSRA. As members of the excepted service, however, FBI employees may not employ the remedial scheme available to most other federal employees. That Congress deliberately excluded FBI employees from the provisions establishing administrative and judicial review for personnel actions involving violations of CSRA implementing regulations suggests that Congress meant to preclude judicial review for such actions. See United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 108 S.Ct. 668, 98 L.Ed.2d 830 (1988) (<HOLDING>); see also Borrell v. United States Int’l 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a procedural default in exhausting administrative remedies bars relief in federal court (B) holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief (C) holding that defendant had adequate alternatives in judicial and administrative remedies to the course he took (D) holding that the csra in failing to provide explicitly for administrative or judicial remedies for certain decisions affecting nonpreference excepted service employees implicitly bars judicial remedies under 5 usc  5596 back pay act (E) holding that the remedies are exclusive

SOLUTION:
holding that a procedural default in exhausting administrative remedies bars relief in federal court