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 Input:
phrase "periodical ly review and monitor the agent" is untested. Thus, the unanswered question before us is how much reviewing and monitoring is required by a trustee to satisfy the mandates of R.C. 1339.59(A)(3)? The plain meaning of the operative words are (1) review "to go over or examine critically or deliberately" and (2) monitor "to watch, keep track of, or check usually for a special purpose." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed.2003) 1067, 801. However, secondary legal authority on this point is scarce and wide ranging: If in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the trustee discovers conditions adversely affecting the security of the investment, it is bound to er (1987), 152 Ariz. 527, 528, 733 P.2d 1110, citing Restatement of the Law 2d, Trusts (1959) 227 (<HOLDING>); Estate of Miller (1964), 230 Cal.App.2d 888,
Holding statements: (A) holding that a trustee who lacks investment experience must seek expert advice regarding investing trust assets while exercising his own judgment (B) holding that a trust beneficiarys state law claims concerning investment of trust assets in affiliated mutual funds satisfied the in connection with a purchase or sale of security requirement of slusa (C) holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust (D) holding that although a trustee is not required to watch the ticker as a speculator would the question of the quality of judgment in holding or disposing of trust assets coupled with evidence of failure to review or monitor the trust estate and refusal to meet with cotrustees presents a jury question on whether or not the trustee breached his duty (E) holding that a trustee properly withheld trust payments owed to a prior trustee who had misappropriated trust funds

Ex Output:
holding that a trust beneficiarys state law claims concerning investment of trust assets in affiliated mutual funds satisfied the in connection with a purchase or sale of security requirement of slusa

Ex Input:
not contest Alaimalo's actual innocence. B. Prior Opportunities to Raise Actual Innocence Claim We turn to the question of whether Alaimalo's actual innocence claim was unavailable to him during his direct appeal and his first 2255 motion. In making this determination, we consider "(1) whether the legal basis for petitioner's claim did not arise until after he had exhausted his direct appeal and first 2255 motion; and (2) whether the law changed in any way relevant to petitioner's claim after that first 2255 motion." Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960 (internal quotation marks omitted). An intervening court decision must "effect a material change in the applicable law" to establish unavailability. Harrison, 519 F.3d at 960. See also In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 607, 610 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that the supreme courts decision in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 effected a material change in the law because the circuit previously held that accessability of a firearm was enough to support an inference that a firearm was used in a drug crime whereas bailey required active employment of the firearm (B) holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used (C) holding that the supreme courts interpretation of 18 usc 924c1 in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 has retroactive application to cases on collateral review (D) holding that the rule announced in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 applies retroactively on collateral review (E) holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense

Ex Output:
holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used

Ex Input:
a showing. Thus, to the extent that Endsley raises issues that fall outside the scope of the COA, we will not consider them here. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); 9th Cir. R. 22-1. The California Court of Appeal determined on direct appeal that the circumstances surrounding Ward's statements provided the particularized guarantees of trustworthiness necessary to satisfy the Confrontation Clause's "residual trustworthiness test." See Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 138, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the California Court of Appeal's resolution of this case was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1); see also United States v. Boone, 229 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Subsequent to Endsley's conviction becoming
Holding statements: (A) holding prior statement subject to crossexamination when made does not violate confrontation clause (B) holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue (C) holding that admission of business records does not violate the confrontation clause under roberts (D) holding that admission of statement with references to we or they which did not directly implicate defendant did not violate defendants confrontation rights (E) holding that the admission of a statement against penal interest made by an accomplice to a close friend in a private setting under circumstances suggesting residual trustworthiness did not violate the confrontation clause

Ex Output:
holding prior statement subject to crossexamination when made does not violate confrontation clause