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]: of the original note because the endorsement on the note in evidence did not match the endorsements on the copy of the note attached to the complaint. As argued by OneWest, the Cummings presented no testimony or evidence to contradict Mr. Den-son's testimony that the note in evidence was the original note acquired by OneWest in May 2010. Likewise, the Cummings' argument regarding the validity of the assignment of mortgage from MERS to In-dyMac is not relevant to OneWest's standing to foreclose. Because the evidence showed that OneWest possessed the original note endorsed in blank at the time it filed the complaint, its standing is established from its status as the note holder regardless of any recorded assignments. See Stone v. BankUnited, 115 So.3d 411, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So.3d 1129,
Holding statements: (A) holding that there is no impermissible modification of the note because the very terms of the note allow for prepayment without a penalty (B) holding that the holder of the note must act in a manner that effectively provides notice that the holder has exercised his option (C) holding that because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be either the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder (D) holding that where a mortgagee is acting on behalf of the note holder there is no disconnection between note and mortgage and the mortgagee may foreclose (E) holding that the note and the mortgage must coexist to give the mortgage validity
[A]: holding that there is no impermissible modification of the note because the very terms of the note allow for prepayment without a penalty

[Q]: testimony, which included not just the cooperators but also the undercover agent, the government also played for the jury the taped conversations from the wiretap. In a number of these conversations, Herrera specifically discussed the drug quantities involved. Furthermore, this case does not present a situation such as the one the Supreme Court considered in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), where a conviction was overturned because there was too great a risk of evidentiary spillover, in part because there were thirty-two named participants and eight separate conspiracies. In the present matter there were only six named participants, two conspiracies and two defendants on trial. See United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 433 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Given the strength of this evidence for
Holding statements: (A) holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant (B) holding that only one offense should have been charged when four separate packages of the same drug were found (C) recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute (D) holding that the conviction should be upheld because there was no prejudice to the defendant even though the defendant had been charged with one conspiracy and the proof at trial showed two separate conspiracies (E) holding that the jury would have no problem separating the actions of the individual defendants where there were only four defendants and two separate conspiracies
[A]: holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant

[Q]: dissentingXconcluding that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Connecticut's dispute with New York because New York state was the real party in interest). Defendants also claim that the relief UUtah seeks is retrospective, not prospective, because its effect will be to deprive the state of Massachusetts of its intellectual property. Defendants are correct that such relief would have a financial impact on UMass, as it would lose either a whole or partial interest in the patents, which have been licensed to pharmaceutical companies. Plaintiff argues that such effect is merely an ancillary effect of prospectively correcting inventorship of the patent. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 278, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (Ex c., 157 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1164 (D.Or.2001) (<HOLDING>). Unlike disputes over lakes, rivers, and state
Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court has broad authority to take jurisdiction over a matter even when that matter is not brought by a real party in interest (B) holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive (C) holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction (D) holding federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction over dispute between state of oregon and arizona corporation because it was not the sort of core sovereign interest that warrants the supreme courts original and exclusive jurisdiction but rather exactly the sort of quarrel over money and technology that the district courts hear frequently when brought by private litigants (E) holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts
[A]:
holding that the district court has broad authority to take jurisdiction over a matter even when that matter is not brought by a real party in interest