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 Q]: marks and citations omitted). {12} We are unconvinced that application of Texas law to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate would violate any fundamental principle, or public policy of New Mexico, nor are we convinced that the outcome of this determination would differ, depending upon whether we applied the law of Texas or New Mexico. Under Texas law, any doubts about whether there is an agreement to arbitrate must be resolved in favor of arbitration. See Dell, Inc. v. Muniz, 163 S.W.3d 177, 181 (Tex.App.2005); AutoNation USA Corp. v. Leroy, 105 S.W.3d 190, 195 (Tex.App.2003). It is not clear that New Mexico has applied the same presumption to this initial determination of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate. See DeArmond, 2003-NMCA-148, 8, 134 N.M. 630, 81 P.3d 573 (<HOLDING>). {13} Even though the presumption in favor of
Holding statements: (A) holding that a party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and show that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement (B) holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration (C) recognizing that a legally enforceable contract is still a prerequisite for arbitration and characterizing the holding in first options of chicago inc v kaplan 514 us 938 94445 115 sct 1920 131 led2d 985 1995 as stating that the presumption in favor of arbitration is reversed when there is a dispute as to the existence of an agreement (D) recognizing that in reviewing ruling on motion to compel arbitration we first determine whether party seeking arbitration established existence of arbitration agreement (E) holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added
[EX A]: holding that a party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and show that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement

[EX Q]: traceable to the shock or disturbing effect on the nerves of the patient, and that in turn, the irritation of the nerves caused functional disorders, and, that whether the disability resulted from nervous reaction or from auto-suggestion set in motion by memory of the accident, the result was the same to the injured person. Id. at 209, 13 S.E.2d at 293. The Supreme Court pointed out in Burlington Mills Corp. that the claimant's disability was occasioned by an injury which "may be fairly traced" to a risk which arose out of and in the course of her employment. There was a direct causal relation between the electric flash and the irritated condition of her nervous system. Id. at 210, 13 S.E.2d at 293; see also E.C. Womack, Inc. v. Ellis, 209 Va. 588, 592-93, 166 S.E.2d 265, 268-69 (1969) (<HOLDING>); Imperial Trash Service v. Dotson, 18 Va.App.
Holding statements: (A) holding that psychological conditions resulting from workrelated trauma are compensable (B) holding injuries suffered on trip for business and pleasure were compensable (C) holding that rico claims were personal and plaintiffs were therefore entitled to sue on their own because their injuries were distinct from the injuries to creditors in general resulting from the diversion of corporate assets (D) holding that psychiatric symptoms resulting in disability from work flowed from injuries received in primary accident and were compensable (E) holding that special damages must be shown to be reasonable and necessarily resulting from accident
[EX A]: holding that psychological conditions resulting from workrelated trauma are compensable

[EX Q]: court that the fact [a prisoner] is barred by the one-year limitation period from asserting his claims pursuant to 2255 does not establish that the remedy in 2255 is 'inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.' ") (quoting 28 U.S.C. 2255(e)). Mr. Jones's reliance on Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) is equally unavailing. First, the Fifth Circuit's decision in Reyes-Requena does not suggest that a claim of actual innocence, standing alone, is sufficient to satisfy 2255(e)'s savings clause. While Reyes-Requena establishes that the Fifth Circuit's 2255(e)'s savings clause test includes an "actual innocence prong," it also indicates a petitioner must show more than actual innocence in order to proceed under 2241. 243 F.3d at 904 (<HOLDING>). Second, and more importantly, "this court
Holding statements: (A) holding that an ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under 2255 whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal (B) holding 2255es savings clause applies to a claim i that is based on a retroactively applicable supreme court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and ii that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioners trial appeal or first 2255 motion (C) holding that 2255 is not available to test the legality of matters which should have been raised on appeal quotation omitted (D) holding that a claim including a constitutional claim must have been asserted to the trial court to be raised on appeal (E) holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal
[EX A]:
holding that an ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under 2255 whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal