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]: assault conviction. See Ohio Rev.Code § 3319.39(B). Further, Plaintiffs understanding of the nature of the choice he was required to make is demonstrated by the fact that he discussed the choices with his union representatives' — the President and Vice President of his local union and the President of the Central Ohio union — and discussed the choice with a teacher at Ft. Hayes High School. See Harris, 2008 WL 4186316, *8, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86385, at *20 (finding that the plaintiff “fully understood the options as he testified that he discussed them with his wife and union steward”). Also, Plaintiff was given a reasonable amount of time to choose between termination and resignation as he was given approximately twenty-four hours in which to decide. See Rhoads, 103 Fed.Appx. at 895 (<HOLDING>); Harris, 2008 WL 4186316, *8, 2008 U.S. Dist. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force (B) holding that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference (C) holding that a plan administrators decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious even though an attending physician had submitted a form stating the plaintiff could sit for six hours stand for two hours and walk for two hours (D) holding that seven hours was a reasonable amount of time to deliberate meaningfully about the choice (E) holding that delay of several hours after the vehicle was seized was reasonable
[A]: holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force


[Q]: judicial review of an arbitration award. See UHC Management Co., 148 F.3d at 998 (“ “We may not set an award aside simply because ... the arbitrators erred in interpreting the law or in determining the facts.’ ”) (quoting Stroh Container Co., 783 F.2d at 751). This third challenge is nonetheless partially cognizable, but only to the extent it can be read as an assertion that there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, a statutory ground under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2), as a claim of misconduct by the arbitrators in refusing to hear evidence or to provide a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, another statutory ground under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3), or as an extra-statutory challenge to the “fundamental fairness” of the proceedings. See P & P Indus., Inc., 179 F.3d at 870 (<HOLDING>). Hoffman’s fourth challenge is to the denial 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing such a ground for judicial review of arbitration awards in this circuit (B) holding right to be fundamental (C) holding that section 34810 is an adequate and independent state ground (D) recognizing plain or fundamental error (E) recognizing review for fundamental unfairness of the proceedings as an independent extrastatutory ground
[A]: recognizing such a ground for judicial review of arbitration awards in this circuit


[Q]: Jose Antonio Bonilla-Guzman appeals the judgment of conviction and his 77 month sentence following his guilty plea to a single count of being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Bonilla-Guzman contends that in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court erred by imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) on the basis of prior convictions for aggravated felonies that were not .charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Bonilla-Guzman also contends that Apprendi renders inapplicable Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>). These arguments are foreclosed by this 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that 8 usc  1326b2 is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense (B) holding that the death of a victim may not be considered an aggravating factor in a homicide sentencing (C) recognizing that 8 usc  1326b contains sentencing facts not elements of the offense (D) holding that age factor in sexual assault statute pertains only to sentencing and is not an element of the offense (E) holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor
[A]:
holding that the death of a victim may not be considered an aggravating factor in a homicide sentencing