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: making mistakes. Thus, any prejudice against the Defendant was at best minimal and could have been turned to the Defendant's advantage by his counsel. Even if any prejudice did result, it most certainly did not permeate the entire trial and impact the result as it appears only once in the transcript and never was mentioned later during the trial. See United States v. Beckett, 706 F.2d 519, 520 (5th Cir.1983) ("Prosecutorial misconduct, fortunately occurring only occasionally, mars any trial in which it occurs and gives grounds for appeal. But a conviction should not be set aside if the prosecutor's conduct, however, wrongful, did not in fact contribute to the guilty verdict and was, therefore, legally harmless."); see also United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1563-66 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). This ground for a new trial, therefore, is
Holding statements: (A) holding that prosecutors direct comments on a defendants failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendants right not to testify (B) holding that trial judges admonition of the jury to disregard prosecutors comments on the defendants failure to testify did not cure the error (C) holding that prosecutors allegedly improper closing arguments regarding burden of proof defendants failure to testify and other allegations did not case serious doubt upon the correctness of the jury verdict or the fairness of the trial (D) holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify (E) holding that any potential prejudice regarding burdenshifting is diminished by the prosecutors statement that the burden of proof is the governments and the courts explicit instructions regarding the burden of proof in the jury charge

A: holding that prosecutors direct comments on a defendants failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendants right not to testify
****
Q: misconduct "that has affected the grand jury's charging decision and is brought to the attention of the trial court before the commencement of trial"). The defendant suggests that Benjamin should not be applied retroactively to bar her claim. See Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) (setting forth a three-part test for determining whether a judicial decision should be applied retroactively). We sympathize with the defendant's belief that retroactive application of Benjamin to preclude any appeal would "pro duce substantial inequitable results." Id. at 107, 92 S.Ct. at 355 (quoting Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 706, 89 S.Ct. 1897, 1900, 23 L.Ed.2d 647 (1968)); cf. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1339-40 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 107 S.Ct. 928, 93
Holding statements: (A) holding that a shortened statute of limitations should not be applied retroactively as to bar otherwise valid civil claims (B) holding that annulment of the automatic stay can be retroactively applied to validate proceedings that otherwise would be void (C) holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case (D) holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired (E) holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases

A: holding that annulment of the automatic stay can be retroactively applied to validate proceedings that otherwise would be void
****
Q: be given to the fact he did so, or that his parents and lawyers approved. 4 . At one point in his testimony, Hodges proudly proclaimed that during 1999 he had closed over 100 transactions for Defendant earning his employer over $600,000 in gross profit. 5 . Several of the lawyers who serve as officers for Defendant apparently graduated together from Rutgers Law School in New Jersey. 6 . Of course, if Wiggins was incapable of contracting with Defendant, which was likely the ultimate issue in any litigation, his agreement to litigate in New Jersey was also unenforceable. 7 . Defendant argued that Plaintiff should not be able to assert claims under the ICPA or for breach of fiduciary duty because those claims were not adequately pled in Plaintiff's complaint. See Supp.2d 319 (D.Vt.1999) (<HOLDING>); contra Rumbin v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 254
Holding statements: (A) holding antiassignment clause in structured settlement is enforceable (B) holding hellorhighwater clause enforceable in the absence of fraud or deceit (C) holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract (D) holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract (E) holding antiassignment provision precludes assignment of structured settlement payments

A:
holding hellorhighwater clause enforceable in the absence of fraud or deceit
****