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]: plain error review because he did not object to the admissibility of the reports or to the testimony by Detective Duft about the report. See State v. Parker, 350 N.C. 411, 427, 516 S.E.2d 106, 118 (1999) (plain error is error “so fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice or which probably resulted in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached.”). Indeed, Defendant never disputed that the material was cocaine. He chose not to defend on that basis, but rather focused on portraying himself as a homeless person making a delivery in exchange for beer and cigarettes. Since the identity of the substance was not challenged, the admission of the laboratory reports was harmless error. See State v. Edwards, - N.C. App. -,-, 621 S.E.2d 333, 337 (2005), (<HOLDING>); State v. Thompson, 110 N.C. App. 217, 225, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial delay for dna testing was attributable to the state but was mere negligence (B) holding that failure to require production of dna testing protocols was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the defendant did not dispute that he committed the crimes at issue but rather argued that he was mentally impaired (C) holding that the sixth amendment confrontation clause violation in that case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore did not require the conviction to be overturned (D) holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases (E) holding the state failed to meet its burden of showing the erroneous jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where it did not address the issue on appeal
[A]: holding that trial delay for dna testing was attributable to the state but was mere negligence


[Q]: the harassment,” Murray, 57 F.3d at 250. As the Second Circuit has recognized, “not every response to a complaint should take the form of discharge;” even a mere written warning can be an appropriate response if it conveys the message that further harassment will not be tolerated. Kotcher, 957 F.2d at 63; see also Torres, 116 F.3d at 639 (“[R]esolution will vary from case to case.”). By far the best evidence that Metro-North’s response was effective is that plaintiff has not been sexually harassed by Chapman or any other Metro-North employee since meeting with Ms. Gormley-O’Connor, see Wahlstrom Dep. at 30, 248, nor has Chapman been accused of accosting any other employees since returning from his suspension, see Chapman Dep. at 64, 279; Sinigiani Dep. at 49; cf. Murray, 57 F.3d at 251 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, while factual issues exist as to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination (B) holding that where the plaintiffs allegations concerning a hostile work environment consist of facts that occurred more than one year before the filing of the complaint such a claim is timebarred (C) holding that allegations of failure to remedy a hostile work environment provided no basis for relief where the evidence demonstrated that the harassment had ended by the time plaintiffs complaint was filed (D) holding that the allegations of plaintiffs coemployees of sexual harassment by manager were irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of the alleged harassment (E) holding that a charge that alleged discrimination on the basis of sex did not support a complaint for hostile environment sexual harassment
[A]: holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination


[Q]: Ramage from possible and foreseeable injuries. GET breached these duties by not inquiring and determining that all motor-coach seats had seatbelts, and the lack of a seatbelt was the proximate and legal cause of Ramage’s injuries. Fifth, Ramage argues GET owed him a duty created by the contract warranty, and breach of the duty by GET created a cause of action based on negligence. Eads v. Marks, 39 Cal.2d 807, 810-11, 249 P.2d 257 (1952). GET had total control of the arranging of motorcoaches, and had a duty to insure that the motoreoaeh in question had seat-belts. Ram he “Responsibility” disclaimer is immaterial. He had the chance to read it, and he signed it. Marek v. Marpan Two, Inc., 817 F.2d 242, 245 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 852, 108 S.Ct. 155, 98 L.Ed.2d 110 (1987) (<HOLDING>). GET reasserts that the “Responsibility” 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile (B) holding that omission was not plain error (C) holding that the passenger who omits toread the contract takes the risk of omission (D) holding an officer may order a passenger to get out of a car during a traffic stop and may frisk a passenger for weapons if the officer reasonably suspects the passenger is armed and dangerous (E) holding that full performance takes a contract outof the statute of frauds
[A]:
holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile