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.

Input: Consider Input: 879 (citations omitted). We think there is a reasonable fit here between the State’s purpose of protecting society from persons who have been determined to be likely to reoffend if not placed in a secure facility and their placement in such a facility. Therefore, Garren has failed to show a substantive due process violation. VII. Vagueness. Although Garren states in a division heading in his brief that chapter 229A is vague as applied and on its face, he makes no argument in his brief in support of the contention that the statute is vague as applied to him. We deem this issue waived. See Iowa R.App.P. 14(a)(3) (“Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite to authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”); State v. Cooley, 608 N.W.2d 9, 13-14 (Iowa 2000) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Garren is precluded from 
 Holding statements: (A) holding issue first addressed in appellants reply brief was not waived because it was in response to argument first presented in appellees brief (B) holding issue waived where matter not addressed beyond reference in heading in brief (C) holding that an issue mentioned in a brief but not addressed is waived (D) holding issues argued orally but not addressed in brief were waived (E) holding an issue listed in statement of issues on appeal but not addressed in brief is abandoned

Output: holding issue first addressed in appellants reply brief was not waived because it was in response to argument first presented in appellees brief


Input: Consider Input: WL 687033, at *1 (D.Md. Feb. 29, 2008) (citing Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)). Courts in the Fourth Circuit deny leave to amend a complaint past the deadline established by a scheduling order where the moving party has been careless in developing his claims or where he has failed to satisfactorily account for his failure to do so. Compare Whichard v. Specialty Restaurants Corp., 220 F.R.D. 439, 441 (D.Md.2004) (denying plaintiffs motion to join an additional defendant five months after the court imposed deadline because plaintiff had ample notice before the deadline that the original defendant might not be the right party) with Long v. Blair, No. 2:09-CV-00349, 2010 WL 1930220 (S.D.W.Va. May 12, 2010) (<HOLDING>). After a movant satisfies the good cause 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that good cause did not exist where counsel waited months after filing of the pleadings to propound written discovery and did not take oral depositions of known key individuals to their claims until after the deadline for amending the complaint (B) holding that a change in the theory of recovery and one prior amendment is not sufficient to deny a motion to amend the complaint where no evidence of bad faith existed (C) holding that denial of leave to amend was appropriate because the plaintiff sought to amend his complaint two years after filing his complaint  on the eve of trial when discovery was complete (D) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline (E) holding that good cause existed where the plaintiff did not establish a sufficient evidentiary basis to support new claims until after the deadline for amending his complaint and moved to amend immediately after the new evidence came to light

Output: holding that good cause did not exist where counsel waited months after filing of the pleadings to propound written discovery and did not take oral depositions of known key individuals to their claims until after the deadline for amending the complaint


Input: Consider Input: section 39.6221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015), requires the circuit court to “[slpecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents.” Here, the court’s order specifies that K.B. shall have a minimum of one hour per week supervised visitation, with additional visitation at the permanent guardian’s' discretion. The order also gives the guardian discretion to permit unsupervised visitation upon determining that KB. has achieved the sobriety and • stability necessary to keep the child safe. However, it does not leave the frequency and nature of visitation to the guardian’s complete discretion. Therefore, the order comports with section 39.6221(2)(c). Cf. S.W-R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 64 So.3d 1283, 1284-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), (<HOLDING>). Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance requested by telephone when the party requesting same was served with notice of the proceeding less than one hour before the hearing (B) holding an upward departure under ussg  5k22 was not error or an abuse of discretion where the victim suffered permanent and lifethreatening injuries (C) holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order (D) holding the permanent guardianship order that provided for visitation biweekly for an hour to an hour and a half or at the discretion of the caregiver did not comply with section 3962212c because it placed complete discretion concerning the frequency and duration of visitation with the permanent guardian (E) holding the selection of the person to be appointed guardian is a matter which is committed largely to the discretion of the appointing court and an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of this discretion only in case of a clear abuse


Output: holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance requested by telephone when the party requesting same was served with notice of the proceeding less than one hour before the hearing