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.

156 F.3d at 194 n. 1 (In prison, "[w]here the government absolutely monopolizes the means of speech or controls a bottleneck, ... a refusal to fund functions the same as an outright ban."); Kimberlin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 318 F.3d 228, 232 (D.C.Cir.2003) (BOP's interpretation of Zimmer Amendment as imposing an outright ban of electrical instruments was reasonable; the restriction on using appropriated funds for the "use or possession" of electric and electronic instruments may reasonably be construed to prohibit paying for costs incidental to such use or possession, including costs incurred for storage, supervision and electricity), reh'g en banc denied, 351 F.3d 1165 and 1166 (D.C.Cir.2003). See also Environmental Defense Ctr. v. Babbitt, 73 F.3d 867, 871-72 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Given the context in which the challenged
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate government acquiescence in part because he never reported alleged gang incidents to the government and therefore could not prove that the government was even aware of a problem (B) holding that the alien was entitled to performance by the government of its promise that the government would not oppose any of his motions for relief from deportation (C) holding that preservation of government resources cannot as a matter of law justify barring some arbitrarily chosen group from a government program (D) holding that amtrak is an agency of the government for purposes of the constitutional obligations of government (E) holding that the use of any government resources whether salaries employees paper or buildings to accomplish a final listing of a species as endangered would entail government expenditure and thereby run afoul of statutory moratorium on spending for such purpose the government cannot make expenditures and therefore cannot act other than by appropriation
holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate government acquiescence in part because he never reported alleged gang incidents to the government and therefore could not prove that the government was even aware of a problem