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.

Input: Consider Input: from the publisher. The United States Supreme Court has held that a New York City correctional facility rule prohibiting the receipt of hardcover books unless mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores is constitutional. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 550, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The correctional facility argued the rule was designed to promote security and order at the facility. Id. at 544, 99 S.Ct. 1861. The Supreme Court agreed, stating this "limited restriction is a rational response by prison officials to an obvious security problem." Id. at 550, 99 S.Ct. 1861. The Court agreed that hardcover books were especially convenient tools for smuggling contraband such as money, drugs, and weapons into a correctional facility and that these books are (<HOLDING>); Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 272 F.Supp.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (B) holding that prison administration may infringe upon prisoners first amendment rights as long as the infringement is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest (C) holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population (D) holding a publisheronly rule was constitutional because prison administrators are accorded deference and rule was reasonably related to the penological interest of maintaining internal prison security (E) holding that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests

Output: holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests

Input: Consider Input: were convicted of conspiring to use, carry, or possess a firearm in furtherance of, inter alia, a conspiracy to violate the Neutrality Act and a conspiracy to provide services to the Taliban. 18 U.S.C. 924(c),(o); J.A. 3223. Both Count Five and Count Eleven, in other words, expressly allow one conspiracy to serve as the predicate for another conspiracy. Nothing about this statutory framework is unconstitutional, improper, or even unusual. Courts have recognized that one conspiracy can serve as the predicate for another conspiracy when the "[overarching] conspiracy and the predicate conspiracy are distinct offenses with entirely different objectives." United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1135 (3rd Cir.1990); see also United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F.2d 913, 918 (2nd Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1208,
Holding statements: (A) holding that two conspiracies existed where the members of the second conspiracy did not know about the first conspiracy did not benefit from the first conspiracy and were connected with the first conspiracy only through a middleman (B) holding that congress intended to allow multiple punishments for rico conspiracies and conspiracies to commit the underlying predicate offense even though the offenses were the same under the blockburger test (C) holding that conspiracies can serve as predicate acts for a rico conspiracy (D) holding that judge erred in not explaining to jury that it could consider predicate acts listed in relation to substantive rico count when deciding whether defendants had also conspired to violate rico (E) recognizing money laundering as a predicate act under rico

Output: holding that two conspiracies existed where the members of the second conspiracy did not know about the first conspiracy did not benefit from the first conspiracy and were connected with the first conspiracy only through a middleman

Input: Consider Input: of being performed by the estate representative. See TPS Freight Distribs., Inc. v. Texas Commerce Bank-Dallas, 788 S.W.2d 456, 458-59 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1990, writ denied); see also Solomon v. Greenblatt, 812 S.W.2d 7, 17 (Tex.App.Dallas 1991, no writ). Thus, to the extent there is a "presumption" regarding survival of a contractual obligation after the death of one of the parties, it is exactly the converse of that advanced by the Estate and adopted by the trial court. Neither the historical treatment of alimony in Texas, nor Texas case law, indicates that the general rules of alimonyi.e., court-ordered spousal supportshould apply to contracts for spousal support, particularly the rule that alimony presumptively terminates on the obligor's death. Cf. Hutchings, 406 S.W.2d at 421 (<HOLDING>). Because Texas law mandates that we apply
Holding statements: (A) holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation (B) holding that an obligors voluntary unemployment would not affect his child support payments (C) holding that agreement for periodic child support payments is governed by law of contracts (D) recognizing that payments to secured creditors are only required in equal monthly amounts if property to be distributed is in the form of periodic payments (E) holding that agreement for periodic child support payments is governed by law of contracts and under contract principles payments survive obligors death absent agreement to contrary shown by provisions of contract or surrounding circumstances
Output: holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation