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:
preventing employee from "working in any geographic space in which [employer] operates" where employer had interest in confidential information); Advanced Cable Ties, Inc. v. Hewes, No. 061995B, 2006 WL 3292810, at *1-2 (Mass.Super.Ct. Oct. 19, 2006) (lack of geographic scope restriction in non-compete not fatal to enforcement of restrictive covenant when employer was national company). 17 . See Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12-13 (Fla.1974) (citing Kenco Chem. and Manufacturing Co. v. Railey, 286 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)); Flickenger v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., Inc., 732 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Balasco v. Gulf Holding, Inc., 707 So.2d 858, 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also Health Care Financial Enterprises, Inc. v. Levy, 715 So.2d 341, 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). 18 .Under Florida law, courts are required to
Holding statements: (A) holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract (B) holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it (C) recognizing court has authority to modify agreement to cure any unreasonable provision as to duration or scope (D) holding that court may not refuse to enforce noncompete agreement solely because geographical area is unreasonable but rather must modify unreasonable restriction and enforce agreement as modified (E) holding an employer may partially enforce a noncompete agreement to the extent it is reasonable under the circumstances

Ex Output:
holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract

Ex Input:
this Opinion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Trustee's Objection to the Debtor's Claim of exemption in her Toledo, Ohio house, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(1), be, and is hereby, SUSTAINED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Trustee's Objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption in past due rents, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(5), be, and is hereby, DISMISSED without prejudice. 1 . As a resident of Michigan, the Debtor along with her bankruptcy petition also filed a contemporaneous motion for a change of venue to the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, which this Court granted. 2 . Pursuant to 522(b), a debtor's right to claim an exemption in bankruptcy is determined by the state in which the debtor is domiciled. See In re Vaughan, 188 B.R. 234, 237 (Bankr.E.D.K.y.1995) (<HOLDING>). Some states like Michigan permit their
Holding statements: (A) holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate (B) holding that the terms residence and domicile are not the same thing but that a debtor may only claim an exemption in property where he is domiciled (C) holding that a bankruptcy debtor may claim the homestead exemption for real property transferred to a selfsettled revocable trust even though the settlor and the beneficiary as well as the bankruptcy debtor were the same person (D) holding that the objector must not only show that the facts do not support the exemption but must also prove that the debtor knowingly deceived the trustee and the creditors at the time the exemption was made (E) holding despite contrary authority that husband debtor with a mere possessoiy interest was not entitled to claim a homestead exemption and stating it is a fundamental tenet of the law of exemptions that the debtor must have an ownership interest in the property before an exemption may be claimed a long line of illinois cases has required that a debtor have title or some ownership interest in property in order to claim a homestead exemption other courts deciding the issue under the federal exemption scheme have held that the key word is interest and that an interest in real property up to a specified amount implies a monetary interest more than just one spouses right to reside with the other

Ex Output:
holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate

Ex Input:
D.I.B. questioned whether the trial court's statement of the law regarding probation was accurate. While D.I.B.'s objections were not as specific as they might have been, the objections were adequate to call the issue to the trial court's attention and to give the trial court an opportunity to cure the error. The error was thus preserved for appeal. IV The court of appeals did not discuss whether the trial court's misstatement of its power to grant probation was harmful error. A harm analysis should have been undertaken, but a review of the record reflects that harm was adequately demonstrated. Counsel for D.I.B. informed the juvenile court that he would recommend to his client disposition by the court rather than by a jury if the court had the authority to gra Antonio 1987, no writ) (<HOLDING>); W.J.M.A. v. State, 602 S.W.2d 397, 399-400
Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to give explanation of allegations required reversal (B) holding that fundamental error occurred and reversal was required when trial court failed to explain allegations or to explain adequately future use of adjudication record (C) holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences was fundamental error that required reversal even though the juvenile had not raised this in his brief (D) holding that failure to give proper instruction regarding disputed element of crime charged was fundamental error requiring reversal and stating that fundamental error is not subject to harmless error review (E) holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences mandated reversal

Ex Output:
holding that failure to give explanation of allegations required reversal