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]: court’s description of the panel’s rationale as “one over which reasonable jurists may differ” can hardly be construed as a ringing endorsement of Bush v. Gore’s precedential value or its application to the issue of variations in voting technology. Shelley II, 344 F.3d at 918. At the very least, the Ninth Circuit’s unanimous decision in Shelley II divested the panel decision of whatever precedential value it otherwise would have had. Undeterred, the majority struggles to accord such value to Shelley I because the rationale adopted by the majority is virtually identical to the one provided by the Shelley I panel — namely, that the plaintiffs’ novel equal protection claims are controlled by Supreme Court precedents that mandate the equal weighting of votes. Compare Maj. Op. at 870-71 (<HOLDING>), with Shelley I, 344 F.3d at 894-95 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the erroneous use of an outdated jury instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force requiring the defendant to retreat if possible negated defendants claim of selfdefense and rose to the level of fundamental error (B) holding that the inclusion of the terms use and possess in a state law prohibiting the possession storage use manufacture or sale of fireworks in counties exceeding a certain population do not render the states exercise of police power unduly oppressive or unconstitutional (C) holding that the counties use of outdated technology results in the weighting of votes differently (D) holding that a plaintiff need only show that the results of a polygraph examination were a factor in the termination of employment and rejecting requirement that results be the sole factor for employees discharge (E) holding that in a statutory fee case the results obtained factor was already subsumed in the lodestar and that results multipliers should be awarded only in some cases of exceptional success
[A]: holding that the erroneous use of an outdated jury instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force requiring the defendant to retreat if possible negated defendants claim of selfdefense and rose to the level of fundamental error


[Q]: court is without power to extend that authority beyond the scope granted by the statute, and no District of Columbia court has ever found service upon such an unauthorized official to be valid against a foreign corporation. Accordingly, we conclude that service upon the Director was ineffective to bring Am-eritrade within the jurisdiction of the district court. Finally, Gorman urges that it would be unfair if a foreign corporation, lawfully subject to the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia because it does business here, could evade that jurisdiction by keeping its agents out of the District and hence beyond the range of effective service of process. If such a loophole does exist, the legislature can, of course, remove it by amending § 13-384 to provide an alternative method 1) (<HOLDING>); Oriental Trading Co. v. Firetti, 236 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that making phone calls and sending facsimiles into the forum may be sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction (B) holding that purposeful availment may exist when a defendant makes phone calls and sends facsimiles into the forum state and such communications form the bases for the action of an intentional tort (C) holding that the defendant companys action in sending a representative to ohio to negotiate a resolution of a prior dispute did not confer personal jurisdiction (D) holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction (E) holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts
[A]: holding that purposeful availment may exist when a defendant makes phone calls and sends facsimiles into the forum state and such communications form the bases for the action of an intentional tort


[Q]: and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005); see also Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). We must therefore decide whether Mothershed’s claims fall within the Rook-er-Feldmandoctrine’s narrowed scope. A Under Rooker-Feldman, lower federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions, and state court litigants may therefore only obtain federal review by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. See Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416, 44 S.Ct. 149 (<HOLDING>); Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486-87, 103 S.Ct. 1303 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar (B) holding that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that effectively sought review of an indiana state courts decision (C) holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case (D) holding that the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs complaint to the extent they sought review  of the district of columbia court of appeals denial of their petitions (E) holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case
[A]:
holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar