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: of the evidence. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 511, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. In interpreting Hicks, supra, the Second Circuit has stated definitively as follows: [Defendant] misreads the Supreme Court's statement in Hicks that once a defendant produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his or her action, the plaintiff must then establish that the defendant's actions were intentionally discriminatory. [Defendant] takes this statement as requiring the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence after the defendant's production evidence beyond that presented in the plaintiffs prima facie case. Justice Scalia took pains to preclude such an interpretation of the Court's decision when he observed that, upon rejection of the defendant's proffered reasons for its action , 142 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1189, 127
Holding statements: (A) holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence (B) holding that former employer met its burden of proof that ubc exception applied (C) holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant (D) holding plaintiffs ultimate burden of proof can be met by combining proof submitted in its prima facie case with evidence that defendants proffered reasons for its acts were false (E) recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous

A: holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence
****
Q: from the Fijian military," was "robbed repeatedly," had his temple burned by Fijian soldiers, and Fijian soldiers attacked his home and destroyed his property while his wife was home alone. See id. Significantly, the attacks were linked by the fact that they were all carried out by a common entity, as opposed to random acts of violence that this court has characterized as the "common byproduct of civil unrest and economic turmoil." See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004). The acts described by Kumar are closer to those in Gormley. Therefore, the evidence does not compel a finding of persecution. Nor did Kumar present evidence that would compel "any reasonable adjudicator" to find that he demonstrated a likelihood of future persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061 (<HOLDING>). Because Kumar's evidence did not compel a
Holding statements: (A) holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals (B) holding that personal disputes do not constitute persecution (C) holding that evidence that is consistent with acts of private violence or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground (D) holding that while widespread violence against a protected group by private individuals and public officials may constitute persecution widespread discrimination that may include persecution of some individuals does not compel such a finding (E) holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution

A: holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals
****
Q: dismissal when "it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief'). Conwill timely appealed the judgment dismissing his PCR motion. Discussion 14. The involved background facts and procedural history, once sorted, lead to a straightforward conclusion: Conwill is not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. I. Time Allowed for Giving a Notice of Appeal 15. To prove the right to an out-of-time appeal, Conwil e of appeal was filed within the thirty days following the sentencing order. 16. In his PCR motion, Conwill does not challenge the waiver he pronounced to the court in May 2008, at his burglary sentencing hearing. See Davis v. State, 36 So.3d 456, 460 ( 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (<HOLDING>). Instead, he asserts that, because he later
Holding statements: (A) holding that one must voluntarily and intelligently waive the right to counsel (B) holding that an accused may voluntarily waive his or her right of appeal so long as the waiver is informed and voluntary quoting 24 cjs criminal law 2349 2006 (C) holding that under the sixth amendment a criminal defendant may waive his right to counsel if that waiver is knowing intelligent and voluntary (D) recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary (E) holding that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily

A:
holding that one must voluntarily and intelligently waive the right to counsel
****