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.

to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case." E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3); see Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. Cnty. of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir.2004). Here, the district court found that Moniz "simply is attempting to re-argue [] issues which were already ruled upon by the Court when it dismissed his Complaint," and thus denied the motion to reconsider. R. 14 (Dist. Ct. Order at 3) (Page ID # 129). This court has stated that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider where the motion "merely raise[s] arguments that were already ruled upon." Graham, 358 F.3d at 385; see also Lommen v. McIntyre, 125 Fed.Appx. 655, 659 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). There was no abuse of discretion in the
Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing (B) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (D) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for reconsideration where the motion presented nothing new and merely rephrased allegations in the complaint (E) holding under third circuit law that the denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion
holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing

likely causes of the engine failure are related to components of the oil delivery system, components of the cylinder assembly, cracked crankcase or an oil leak in general, etc." As such, the Court finds that Mr. Klepacki's opinion regarding the more likely causes of engine failure should be excluded. Plaintiffs Expert Donald Sommer Even assuming, without deciding, that Mr. Sommer is qualified to testify as an expert on piloting and accident reconstruction, including engine failure analysis, the Court must still find that the process he used in forming his expert opinion is suffi ciently reliable under Daubert and its progeny. See Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc., 326 F.3d at 1342 (stating that "one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony"); cf. McCorvey, 298 F.3d at 1257 (<HOLDING>). The Court must also find that the testimony
Holding statements: (A) holding that federal rules of evidence require trial courts to hold hearingsreferred to as daubert hearingsto determine reliability of scientific expert testimony before admission at trial (B) holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility (C) holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable (D) holding that daubert does not create a new framework for analyzing proffered expert testimony based upon technical or other specialized knowledge (E) holding that rjulings on admissibility under daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered experts methodology
holding that federal rules of evidence require trial courts to hold hearingsreferred to as daubert hearingsto determine reliability of scientific expert testimony before admission at trial

have consistently held that "[a] reasonable investigation following a justifiable traffic stop may include asking for the driver's license and registration^]" Allegree, 175 F.3d at 650 (citing United States v. Ramos, 42 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir.1994)); see also United States v. Dexter, 165 F.3d 1120, 1126 (7th Cir.1999) ("Asking for a vehicle's registration papers is clearly a legitimate way to verify a vehicle's registration status."). Detective Hall's request for Clay-born's registration papers and identification was reasonably related to confirming the vehicle's registration status and explaining the lack of license plates. The subsequent searches were also justified because of the odor of marijuana, the arrest of Clayborn, and the impounding of the vehicle. Peltier, 217 F.3d at 610 (<HOLDING>); New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 462-63, 101
Holding statements: (A) holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper (B) holding that the court of appeals properly concluded that the odor of marijuana emanating from defendants vehicle constituted probable cause to search the vehicle (C) holding that because marijuana has a distinct smell the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a vehicle or baggage (D) holding that alcohol odor provided probable cause to search vehicle for open container and smell of burnt marijuana justified search of entire vehicle for drugs (E) holding that the smell of marijuana gave the police probable cause to search the vehicle
holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper