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.

Example Input: Dr. Brewer's reports addressed the conduct of OGA's employees, Drs. Jacobs and Gunn, the reports identified Dr. Gunn as OGA's employee, and McCoy's original petition alleged that OGA was vicariously liable for the conduct of Jacobs and Gunn under the doctrine of respondeat superior and the requirements of the Texas Professional Association Act. See Troeger v. Myklebust, 274 S.W.3d 104, 110 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (rejecting claim that conduct of dentist, who was sole defendant, was not implicated because her name was omitted from expert report and holding that dentist waived challenges to expert report by failing to raise objections within twenty-one days after service); Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Dale, 188 S.W.3d 877, 879 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet) (<HOLDING>). In response, OGA disputes that its conduct
Holding statements: (A) holding that medical center was not required to be named in expert report addressing its residents conduct because plaintiffs alleged no directliability claims against it and noting that medical center was implicated in report and so waived all its objections when it failed to object to sufficiency of report within twentyone days after service (B) holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report (C) holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation (D) holding that expert report addressing hospitals conduct was not required when plaintiffs sole theory against hospital was vicarious liability based on ostensible agency and explaining that the conduct by the hospital on which the agency relationship depends is not measured by a medical standard of care these are principles of agency law on which no expert report is required (E) holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a
Example Output: holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report

Example Input: options," including by streamlining communication between the distressed borrower and foreclosing party. See Assemb. B. 278, 2011-2012 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2012); S.B. 900, 2011-2012 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2012). There has been a wave of litigation in state and federal courts challenging various aspects of the MERS System. Almost all of the relevant law is state rather than federal. The results under state law have been inconsistent. See Weber, supra, at 246-56 (cataloguing the "schizophrenic position of state courts" on issues relating to the MERS System). Some state supreme courts have upheld the MERS System on issues ranging from foreclosure authority to recording requirements. See, e.g., Renshaw v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 155 Idaho 656, 315 P.3d 844, 846-47 (2013) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys.,
Holding statements: (A) holding that mers lacked standing to foreclose as the lenders nominee (B) holding that because mers receives no payments on the debt it is not the beneficiary even though it is so designated in the deed of trust (C) holding that mers is an ineligible beneficiary within the terms of the washington deed of trust act if it never held the promissory note or other debt instrument secured by the deed of trust and that characterizing mers as the beneficiary has the capacity to deceive and may give rise to an action under the consumer protection act (D) holding that mers may be a beneficiary as nominee for the lender that assignments of the deed of trust between mers members need not be recorded that mers was not liable to the borrower in negligence and that the idaho consumer protection act did not provide a cause of action to the borrower (E) holding that mers was not the beneficiary of a deed of trust under the oregon trust deed act absent conveyance to mers of the beneficial right to repayment and that mers could not hold or transfer legal title to the deed as the lenders nominee
Example Output: holding that mers lacked standing to foreclose as the lenders nominee

Example Input: the firearm, as opposed to any use that might cause danger," Aplt. Br. at 10, '"[t]he simple possession of an unregistered firearm ... is not covered by [the Section 4B1.2] list." Id. at 11. He cites to the commentary to this section of the sentencing guidelines, which provides that "the term 'crime of violence' does not include the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm." U.S.S.G. 4B1.2 App. Note 2. Dwyer argues since "the commentary is a binding interpretation of the phrase 'crime of violence,' " Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 47, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993), simple possession of an unregistered firearm is not a crime of violence. In United States v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 1403, 1411 (10th Cir.1990), in discussing the unlawful possession of an unre h Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Allegree, 175 F.3d 648, 651
Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence obtained following the polices unconstitutional search of the defendants backpack which was not with the defendant at the time of the search and in which the police found a sawedoff shotgun was sufficiently far from the unconstitutional search because the challenged evidence was obtained as a result of the polices decision to pursue the defendant a decision they would have made even absent finding the sawedoff shotgun because the defendant was a person of interest in their underlying investigation (B) holding that possession of a sawedoff shotgun under 26 usc 5861d is a crime of violence and noting that congress found certain firearms sawedoff shot guns and grenades to be inherently dangerous and lacking in usefulness other than for violent and criminal purposes (C) holding that for purposes of 4b12 possession of a sawedoff shotgun in violation of 5861d is a crime of violence because by its very nature a sawedoff shotgun always creates a serious risk of physical injury to another (D) holding that possession of sawedoff shotgun is violent felony as defined by armed career criminal act (E) holding that possession of a sawed off shotgun is a crime of violence
Example Output:
holding that evidence obtained following the polices unconstitutional search of the defendants backpack which was not with the defendant at the time of the search and in which the police found a sawedoff shotgun was sufficiently far from the unconstitutional search because the challenged evidence was obtained as a result of the polices decision to pursue the defendant a decision they would have made even absent finding the sawedoff shotgun because the defendant was a person of interest in their underlying investigation