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.

Ex Input:
the in-state banking activities of these French and Japanese banks and Plaintiffs' claims arising from a terrorist attack that occurred in Israel with the support of the Iranian government. It certainly cannot be said that Plaintiffs' claims "directly arise" out of the banking activities of these local branches. See GCIU, 565 F.3d at 1024. Thus, under traditional legal principles, specific jurisdiction is lacking. Although the Seventh Circuit has not addressed this issue, two Circuits have reformulated the minimum-contacts inquiry in cases involving third-party discovery, focusing more narrowly "on the connection between the nonparty's contacts with the forum and the discovery order at issue." Gucci, 768 F.3d at 137; see also S.E.C. v. Knowles, 87 F.3d 413, 418 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>)., It is unclear whether this test is proper,
Holding statements: (A) holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction (B) holding that specific jurisdiction requires plaintiff to show that defendants forum contacts be related directly to the subject of the lawsuit (C) holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas (D) holding that courts exercise of specific jurisdiction was proper where subpoena enforcement action arose out of nonpartys contacts with the forum (E) holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum

Ex Output:
holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction

Ex Input:
such equitable relief as may be appropriate. 29 U.S.C. 2617(a)(1). A. Serious Health Condition Wells Fargo first argues that Vincent did not suffer a "serious health condition" as that term is defined by the FMLA. The parties agree that the Court should examine the regulations implementing the FMLA in order to determine whether Vincent suffered from a serious health condition. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the interim regulations or the final regulations, which became effective on April 6, 1995, should be used by the Court in arriving at its determination. The Court finds that the interim regulations which were in effect in January of 1995, the time of Vincent's termination, govern this action. See Gay v. Gilman Paper Company, 125 F.3d 1432, 1434 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Having resolved the dispute as to which set
Holding statements: (A) holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it (B) holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue (C) holding that the interim regulations governed a dispute in which the serious health condition and subsequent termination occurred prior to april 6 1995 the effective date of the final regulations (D) holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997 (E) holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996

Ex Output:
holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it

Ex Input:
CK demonstrated sexual intercourse. Id. This testimony was admitted by the military judge, over defense objection, under Mil. R. Evid. 803(2), as an excited utterance. Record at 113-14. The military judge premised his ruling on a finding that the revelation was made while CK was excited from the startling event of learning her mother was not going to be with her at the upcoming visit with the appellant. Id. The statements by CK were an example of delayed reporting, made more than 1 year after any abusive conduct was alleged to have occurred, and well after CK's opportunity to privately report the assaults to her mother. To be admissible, an excited utterance must be made while under the excitement of the offense being prosecuted. See generally United States v. Grant, 42 M.J. 340 (1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Arnold, 25 M.J. 129
Holding statements: (A) holding 36 to 48 hours between assault and excited report not within mil r evid 8032 hearsay exception (B) holding florida drivers handbook hearsay and not within any recognized exception to hearsay rule (C) holding that hearsay within a police report was inadmissible (D) recognizing that excited utterance and testimonial hearsay inquiries are separate but related (E) holding that testimonial statements are subject to the requirements of the confrontation clause even if they are otherwise admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances

Ex Output:
holding florida drivers handbook hearsay and not within any recognized exception to hearsay rule