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: the rate must make a threshold showing that the rate at issue is unreasonable. Milne, 970 F.2d at 570; Covey, 763 F.Supp. at 482-83. Relevant factors in the determination include "relevant rate comparisons, a carrier's proffer of a particular rate, and whether the rate would have moved the traffic had it been asserted at the time the shipments took place." Matter of Brown Transport Truckload, Inc., 144 B.R. 183, 187 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1992). One common method of making a prima facie showing of unreasonableness is to provide affidavit testimony demonstrating a significant disparity between the rates sought to be charged by the carrier and the rates charged by competing carriers at the time in question. See, e.g., Vining v. The Eureka Co., 1992 WL 370520, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 8, 1992) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Brown, 144 B.R. at 187 (noting
Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo (B) holding eighty percent increase in demanded rates and showing that original rates were competitive with other carriers was prima facie unreasonable (C) holding prima facie showing of unreasonableness made by presenting evidence that tariff rates in effect at time of shipments were well above rates paid to other carriers for same service (D) holding that absence of competitive injury was not a defense to prima facie violation of 2e (E) holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
Example Output: holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo

Example Input: the future because she continues to own and operate Helping Hands and intends to remain in the childcare services profession. Docket No. 17 at 112. She posits no other basis for establishing her standing to seek prospective relief against the Secretary. Docket No. 26 at 6-9. Her status as the owner and operator of a child-care facility does not provide her with standing to seek the declaratory and injunctive relief that she seeks. Mosby v. Ligon, 418 F.3d 927, 933-934 (8th Cir.2005) (recognizing that an attorney's status as a member of the bar does not afford him or her standing to prospectively attack the implementation of the professional disciplinary procedures applicable to attorneys practicing in a particular jurisdiction); Brown v. Fauver, 819 F.2d 395, 400, n. 5 (3d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Burns does not allege that she has been
Holding statements: (A) holding that counsel cannot raise his or her own ineffectiveness (B) holding that plaintiff must on his or her own initiative prove that the product reached him or her without substantial change (C) holding that for a legal malpractice claim to accrue a plaintiff need not know the precise extent of his or her damages or even have suffered all of the damages attributable to his or her attorneys negligence (D) holding that a prisoner cannot establish his or her standing to prospectively challenge the validity of a facilitys disciplinary procedures simply by referring to his or her status as an individual incarcerated in that facility (E) holding that an expert can comply with the timing requirement if an experts research even after his or her deposition revealed that the standard of care in his or her community was the same or similar to the standard of care in the community in which he or she is testifying when the injury occurred
Example Output: holding that counsel cannot raise his or her own ineffectiveness

Example Input: deadlines and then apply that concept using conventional computer technology and the Internet, they fail to meet section 101's subject matter eligibility requirements. "While running a particular process on a computer undeniably improves efficiency and accuracy, cloaking an otherwise abstract idea in the guise of a computer-implemented claim is insufficient to bring it within section 101." My Space, Inc. v. Graphon Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1267 (Fed. Cir.2012) (Mayer, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted); see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir.2012) (concluding that claims directed to a computerized method of managing a stable value protected life insurance policy fell outside section 101); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
Holding statements: (A) holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not know the residence for which they obtained a warrant actually contained multiple units (B) holding that section 1823e applies only to assets and does not apply to claims regarding letters of credit because letters of credit are liabilities rather than assets (C) holding that a credit issuing bank did not breach a credit agreement when it unilaterally modified the terms (D) holding that claims drawn to a method of applying for credit did not satisfy section 101 notwithstanding the fact that they contained a limitation requiring the invention to be computer aided (E) recognizing statutory credit
Example Output:
holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not know the residence for which they obtained a warrant actually contained multiple units