instruction:
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.
question:
of the original note because the endorsement on the note in evidence did not match the endorsements on the copy of the note attached to the complaint. As argued by OneWest, the Cummings presented no testimony or evidence to contradict Mr. Den-son's testimony that the note in evidence was the original note acquired by OneWest in May 2010. Likewise, the Cummings' argument regarding the validity of the assignment of mortgage from MERS to In-dyMac is not relevant to OneWest's standing to foreclose. Because the evidence showed that OneWest possessed the original note endorsed in blank at the time it filed the complaint, its standing is established from its status as the note holder regardless of any recorded assignments. See Stone v. BankUnited, 115 So.3d 411, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So.3d 1129,
Holding statements: (A) holding that there is no impermissible modification of the note because the very terms of the note allow for prepayment without a penalty (B) holding that the holder of the note must act in a manner that effectively provides notice that the holder has exercised his option (C) holding that because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be either the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder (D) holding that where a mortgagee is acting on behalf of the note holder there is no disconnection between note and mortgage and the mortgagee may foreclose (E) holding that the note and the mortgage must coexist to give the mortgage validity
answer:
holding that there is no impermissible modification of the note because the very terms of the note allow for prepayment without a penalty

question:
did not present any evidence before the district court to meet his burden of showing that the affidavit, which directly corroborates Johnson's testimony before the magistrate judge, is false or unreliable. Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that the district court erred, we readily conclude that any error was harmless. B. Credibility of Witnesses The district court's findings of fact at a revocation hearing are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318 (11th Cir.1993). "The credibility of a witness is in the province of the factfinder and this court will not ordinarily review the factfinder's determination of credibility." United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 (11th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). We defer to the lower court's credibility
Holding statements: (A) holding that an immigration judge may base a credibility determination on the lack of corroborating evidence if the judge also encounters inconsistencies in testimony contradictory evidence or inherently improbable testimony (B) holding jury is sole judge of witness credibility and may believe some witnesses and refuse to believe others (C) holding jury as judge of credibility may believe all some or none of the testimony (D) holding in the context of a criminal trial that a courts choice of who to believe is conclusive unless the judge credits exceedingly improbable testimony (E) holding that where testimony is inherently improbable the court may choose to disregard it
answer:
holding that an immigration judge may base a credibility determination on the lack of corroborating evidence if the judge also encounters inconsistencies in testimony contradictory evidence or inherently improbable testimony

question:
was under arrest. Id. at 502-03, 103 S.Ct. 1319. Here, too, plaintiffs were removed from the airline concourse to a small, enclosed space for interrogation purposes, but the enclosed space was literally a jail cell, and the location in question was not forty feet away, as in Royer, but between five and fifteen minutes away by car. The transportation and confinement was thus far more intrusive than what the Supreme Court in Royer held to constitute a de facto arrest. Indeed, the Supreme Court has squarely held that "transportation to and investigative detention at [a] station house" is not permissible incident to a Terry stop. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 815, 105 S.Ct. 1643, 84 L.Ed.2d 705 (1985); see also Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Thus, it has made pellucidly clear that "the
Holding statements: (A) holding that a de facto arrest had occurred where petitioner was not questioned briefly where he was found but rather was taken to a police car transported to a police station and placed in an interrogation room (B) holding that an illegal arrest occurred when the defendant was transported without probable cause from his home to the police station for fingerprinting and that the line is crossed when the police without probable cause or a warrant forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station where he is detained although briefly for investigative purposes (C) holding in the context of a prosecution for second degree escape that although defendant was not handcuffed he had nonetheless been placed under arrest had had his liberty restrained in that he was not free to leave and at that point the first step in the process of transporting him to the police station had begun consequently the defendants arrest was complete and he was in custody (D) holding on habeas review that defendant was not in custody for miranda purposes and reciting among other facts that defendant was transported to a police station for questioning in an unmarked police car which was not equipped with a shield inside the car (E) holding that the state courts determination that petitioner was not in custody was not unreasonable under aedpa where the petitioner voluntarily went to the police station was interviewed by three police officers and one polygraph examiner was deceitfully told that another man had implicated him in a murder and was questioned for four hours before being advised of his miranda rights
answer:
holding that an illegal arrest occurred when the defendant was transported without probable cause from his home to the police station for fingerprinting and that the line is crossed when the police without probable cause or a warrant forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station where he is detained although briefly for investigative purposes