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]: search a premises, Weston, 67 M.J. at 393 (citing Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988), I do not believe that case to be controlling. Matlock was arrested on the front lawn of the house, Matlock, 415 U.S. at 166, 94 S.Ct. 988, and placed in a nearby police car. Id. at 179, 94 S.Ct. 988 (Douglas, J., dissenting). The arresting officers subsequently approached the house, spoke with a resident who shared a bedroom with Matlock, and received permission to search that bedroom. Id. at 166, 94 S.Ct. 988. The police did not ask Matlock for his consent to search the bedroom, nor did he offer it. Id. The Supreme Court recognized the consent of the cotenant may be valid against a eotenant who has not objected. Id. at 170, 94 S.Ct. 988; see also Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 179-80, 186, 110 S.Ct. 2793 (<HOLDING>). This case differs from Matlock and Rodriguez
Holding statements: (A) holding cotenants consent to search valid where rodriguez who was asleep inside the house was not asked for his consent if police reasonably believed the consenter possessed common authority over the premises (B) holding that the agents superficial and cursory questioning of the consenting party did not disclose sufficient information for the agent reasonably to believe that she had common authority over the premises and that further inquiry was required under rodriguez (C) holding that mother who was resident of house shared with adult daughter could give valid consent to search premises (D) holding that consent to search premises includes consent to search washing machine on those premises (E) holding that there is no violation of the fourth amendment when the government reasonably believed that the individual giving consent to the search had authority to do so
[EX A]: holding that the agents superficial and cursory questioning of the consenting party did not disclose sufficient information for the agent reasonably to believe that she had common authority over the premises and that further inquiry was required under rodriguez

[EX Q]: on the conditions stated in the publicly-filed limited partnership certificate. We affirm the appellants' liability under 106(l)(b). The certificates of limited partnership for TSG, TMG, and TSG 80 all state that, if necessary to satisfy the partnership's recourse obligations, each limited partner has agreed, upon demand, to make an additional capital contribution of up to three times the limited partner's original investment. These certificates were recorded publicly in New York County. Accordingly, the capital of the Limited Partnerships upon which creditors properly could rely included the limited partners' stated ob ligation to make additional capital contributions. See Arno Management Corp. v. 115 East 69th Assocs., 173 A.D.2d 258, 260, 569 N.Y.S.2d 656, 657 (1st Dept.1991) (<HOLDING>). Section 106(l)(b) explicitly provides a means
Holding statements: (A) holding that limited partner does not have standing to sue for injuries to partnership that merely diminish value of that partners interest (B) holding that appellate jurisdiction is limited to the issues contained in the certificate of appealability (C) recognizing partnership by estoppel only with respect to claims by persons who have reasonably relied upon outward representations of partnership (D) recognizing that same principle applies where defendant is general partner of limited partnership which in turn is general partner of limited partnership with contacts with state (E) holding that the information contained in the certificate of limited partnership binds the partnership and the partners with respect to third parties
[EX A]: holding that limited partner does not have standing to sue for injuries to partnership that merely diminish value of that partners interest

[EX Q]: project). Finally, Morgan Keegan's allegations fail to show that the municipality would have obtained any profit or benefit from the construction of this facility, except for job creation and other economic stimulation. In fact, any payments Defendants received as a result of this project were to be used to repay bondholders. [Doc. # 25-2 at 326-27]. Consequently, this case is distinguishable from those cases cited by Morgan Keegan in which the municipality actually operated a business for profit. Cf. Junior Coll. Dist. of St. Louis, 149 S.W.3d at 448 ("[W]hen a municipality is in the business of selling water to customers for profit or revenue, it is engaged in a proprietary function."); Pierson v. Cumberland Cnty. Civic Ctr. Comm'n, 141 N.C.App. 628, 540 S.E.2d 810, 813-14 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Susla v. State, 311 Minn. 166, 247 N.W.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that the percentage of minority faculty need not approximate the percentage of minority students (B) holding that the court has discretion to double check the reasonableness of the percentage fee through a lodestar calculation (C) holding that the fee applicant bears the burden of showing that an adjustment is necessary to the determination of a reasonable fee (D) holding that where a contract for legal services fails to expressly provide for the amount of the fee a reasonable fee is implied (E) holding that the leasing of an event center was proprietary where the public entity charged each promoter a fee for leasing the facility and received a percentage of the total ticket sales
[EX A]:
holding that the percentage of minority faculty need not approximate the percentage of minority students