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.

Q: United States v. Griffith, 17 F.3d 865, 880 (6th Cir.1994). B. Sufficiency of the evidence K. Kennedy and Scarborough moved for judgments of acquittal at the close of the government's proof, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain their convictions. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 29(a). The district court considered and denied the motions, and neither defendant renewed his or her respective motion at the close of all the evidence, see Swidan, 888 F.2d at 1080, or within 14 days after their guilty verdicts,' see Fed. R.Crim.P. 29(c)(1). They have thus failed to preserve their rights to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in the absence of a miscarriage of justice. See Swidan, 888 F.2d at 1080; see also United States v. Faymore, 736 F.2d 328, 334 (6th Cir.1984) '(<HOLDING>).' Both K. Kennedy and Scarborough conceded at
Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to consider an improper jury instruction would constitute a miscarriage of justice (B) holding that the defendants insufficientevidence claim was barred by his failure to renew his rule 29 motion at the close of all the evidence because there was no manifest miscarriage of justice (C) holding that even when a defendant moves under rule 50 at the close of plaintiffs evidence and autocentro did not even do that if a defendant wishes to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the posttrial stage with a view to having denial of that motion considered by the court of appeals the defendant is required to have moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence (D) holding that defendants failure to renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law which was denied by the district court when they made it at the close of the evidence limited the relief the appellate court could grant to a new trial (E) holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence

A: holding that failure to consider an improper jury instruction would constitute a miscarriage of justice
****
Q: litigation. The district court can correct any abuses at the fees for fees stage under the "reasonableness" standard. The presumptive cap mostly takes away the discretion afforded to the district court in the statute. See 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) ("[T]he court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs... ."). , Congress knows how to set caps on fee applications and has done so in other contexts, yet it did not do so in 1988. See, e.g., Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2158, 2165, 192 L.Ed.2d 208 (2015) (concluding that a fee-shifting provision in the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for "[t]ime spent litigating a fee application"); In re Meese, 907 F.2d 1192, 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>); cf. Kaseman v. Dist. of Columbia, 444 F.3d
Holding statements: (A) holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment (B) holding that time entries such as preparation for hearing or preparation for school visit were too vague and reducing overall fee award by twentyfive percent (C) holding that fee application must be sufficiently detailed to allow court to make an independent evaluation as to what fees are actual and necessary and finding that failure to keep contemporaneous records does not automatically result in denial of the fees but the lack thereof justifies a reduction of the fee to the level proven (D) holding that attorneys fees for the preparation of the fee application are compensable (E) holding that the independent counsel reauthorization act does not permit fees claimed for the preparation of a fee application

A: holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment
****
Q: 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), the court finds that it may hold Goldman Antonetti vicariously liable for the sanctionable conduct of its lawyers pursuant to 1927. In addition to the reasons articulated in Brignoli, the individual attorneys were undoubtedly aided in their representation of the Esso Defendants by other attorneys employed by the Goldman Antonetti firm who despite their absence from the courtroom must nevertheless fulfill their ethical obligations to the bench and the bar. Where the record discloses sanctionable conduct as extensive as that presented in this matter, the court finds that the law firm must ultimately shoulder its share of responsibility; thus, sanctions should issue under 1927. Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corporation, et al., 144 F.R.D. 662, 669 (D.N.J. 1992) (<HOLDING>). Further, the sanctionable conduct here
Holding statements: (A) holding sanctions order not final where the amount of sanctions had not yet been determined (B) holding attorneys fees not recoverable under pre1980 version of section 1927 but remanding because they might be justified under the courts inherent power (C) recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions to the lawyers firm or employer (D) recognizing that an order of restitution is available as a freestanding sanction to be imposed alone or in combination with other sanctions (E) recognizing that sanctions under 1927 may be imposed against a law firm

A:
holding sanctions order not final where the amount of sanctions had not yet been determined
****