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.
--------
Question: CURIAM: Michael Disch appeals his convictions for mailing threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 876(c), and making false statements to an FBI agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Disch argues that the district court judge was required to recuse himself sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and 455(b). Ordinarily, we review a judge's decision not to recuse himself under 455(a) and 455(b) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir.1999); see also Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1527-28 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). However, when a defendant fails to seek
Holding statements: (A) holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error (B) holding that a 455b violation is subject to harmless error review (C) holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error (D) holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review (E) holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis

Answer: holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error

Question: the jury during final jury instructions not to consider any testimony it had stricken or ordered the jury to disregard during trial. See United States v. Liburd, 607 F.3d 339, 344, 53 V.I. 890 (3d Cir. 2010) ("[W]hile curative instructions cannot repair every error, we do generally presume that juries follow their instructions."). Finally, as discussed above in section B, the People presented overwhelming evidence that Augustine was the individual who pulled a gun and started shooting at Officers Greaves, Wharton, and Allen. Based on these factors, Officer Wharton's statement given in response to a question would not have been sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial even if Augustine's attorney had requested one at trial. See Ethridge v. State, 418 P.2d 95, 100 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the Superior Court did
Holding statements: (A) holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt (B) holding mistrial not warranted for improper statement by police officer where court sustained defendants objection and admonished jury to disregard statement and where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt (C) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question (D) holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection and admonished the jury to disregard the statement (E) holding that while the prosecutors question was improper in light of the overwhelming evidence there was no reversible error in the denial of defendants motion for mistrial

Answer: holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt

Question: to disbelieve what a person who is accused of a crime might testify to in his defense solely because he is the defendant? In addition, if the testimony given by a law enforcement agent confliets with the defendant's testimony, would you be inclined to believe the former and disbelieve the latter solely because the former is a police officer? 2 . A previous Eleventh Circuit panel has noted that Jackson and Gassaway govern our review of a district court's decision not to question prospective jurors regarding their attitudes towards law enforcement officers' testimony. See United States v. Vadino, 680 F.2d 1329, 1336-37 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1082, 103 S.Ct. 1771, 76 L.Ed.2d 344 (1983). See generally Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The court below, in fact, went further in
Holding statements: (A) recognizing circuit split (B) holding in an appeal from the denial of a rule 32 petition that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in not ruling on his motion to subpoena a transcript of his guilty plea proceedings was not preserved for review because the circuit court never ruled on the motion and the appellant never objected to the circuit courts failure to rule on the motion (C) recognizing that the findings of the circuit court on factual issues arising on a motion to quash service of process for lack of jurisdiction are binding on the appellate court unless wholly unsupported by the evidence or controlled by error of law (D) holding that all fifth circuit cases decided before the close of business on september 30 1981 are binding on the eleventh circuit (E) recognizing a split in the circuit as to whether objections to prudential standing can be waived and listing circuit cases

Answer:
recognizing circuit split