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.

was safe to operate, afforded discretion to the FAA to "make its own findings" whether the submitted documentation satisfied that requirement. Id. Likewise, as the district court noted, 49 C.F.R. 385.17(f) is not a "check list." J.A. at 105. It leaves it to the FMCSA to determine whether a carrier's submission provides evidence that corrective action has been taken, and whether the agency has the resources to reach a final decision within 45 days. Such decisions, which relate to a regulatory agency's "implementation of a mechanism for compliance review" and necessarily require "balancing the objectives sought to be obtained against such practical considerations as staffing and funding," constitute discretionary functions themselves. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 819-20, 104 S.Ct. 2755 (<HOLDING>). Discretion thus suffuses 49 C.F.R.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver (B) holding that the faas alleged negligence in failing to check certain specific items in the course of certificating a specific aircraft as part of a spotcheck program involved calculated risks but fell squarely within the discretionary function exception (C) holding that actions against the faa for its alleged negligence in certificating aircraft for use in commercial aviation are barred by the discretionary function exception of the federal tort claims act id at 821 104 sct 2755 because the faas decisions as to the manner of enforcing regulations is plainly a discretionary activity id at 819 21 104 sct 2755 (D) holding that the faas application of a spotcheck system to a particular aircraft was a discretionary function (E) holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision
recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver

California state prisoner, Roy Lee Brown, Jr., appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253. We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we vacate and remand. Brown contends that his 2254 petition was timely filed because his state habeas petitions statutorilly tolled the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) one-year statute of limitations. We agree. Brown is entitled to tolling during the time he was seeking one full round of collateral review by the California courts. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(d); Delhomme v. Ramirez, No. 00-56148, 2003 WL 21947183, at *3 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2003) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 220, 122
Holding statements: (A) holding that second and third state habeas petitions that were dismissed as impermissible successive petitions were properly filed (B) holding that it would be inappropriate to predict whether state law would foreclose state postconviction review of the petitioners habeas claim where the state permitted second or successive state petitions when the procedural bar would result in fundamental injustice (C) recognizing that a habeas petitioner may be entitled to tolling during a second round of petitions but holding that the statute is not tolled between rounds (D) holding that overlapping state habeas petitions begin a separate round of review and do not disturb the pendency of petitioners first round of review (E) holding that overlapping petitions do not affect tolling during the time petitioner is seeking one full round of review
holding that second and third state habeas petitions that were dismissed as impermissible successive petitions were properly filed

91 L.Ed. 451 (1947); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3)(A)(ii). "[T]he purpose of the work product privilege is to protect the integrity of the adversary process." Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262, 1271 (11th Cir.1983); see also Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Az., 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir.1989) ("The conditional protections afforded by the work-product rule prevent exploitation of a party's efforts in preparing for litigation."). Not surprisingly, it does not apply to foster a distortion of the adversary process by protecting illegal actions by an attorney. Because its purpose "is to protect the integrity of the adversary process[,] ... it would be improper to allow an attorney to exploit the privilege for ends that are antithetical to that process." Parrott, 707 F.2d at 1271 (<HOLDING>) (citing Moody v. I.R.S., 654 F.2d 795, 800
Holding statements: (A) holding an attorneys unethical conduct in secretly recording conversations with witnesses vitiated the work product protection as to those recordings (B) holding that the party asserting work product protection has the burden of establishing that the doctrine applies (C) holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine (D) holding that opinion work product is entitled to nearly absolute protection with limited exceptions (E) holding that the protection of the work product rule continues after litigation has terminated
holding that the party asserting work product protection has the burden of establishing that the doctrine applies