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: Law. 11-12 (Nov. 1994) ("The side with the best case almost always wins, and the performance of the lawyers almost never matters. Some of the best lawyering I've ever seen has resulted in spectacular losses. And some of the most bumbling lawyers have had the fortune of attaching themselves to strong, and therefore winning, cases."). 50 . See Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Snyder, 368 Md. 242, 793 A.2d 515, 531 (2002) (finding that attorney's failure to research whether his client, a criminal defendant, needed to be present at her initial appearance, as well as his failure to have her arrest warrant recalled once he learned of its issuance, provided sufficient evidence that he had violated MRPC 1.1); Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 753 A.2d 17, 26-27 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 51 . Stip. Ex. 26 at Beecher00203. 52 . See
Holding statements: (A) holding that under texas law the mere representation of a party in a lawsuit does not establish privity between an attorney and his or her client (B) holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case (C) holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client (D) holding that an attorney whose office staff incorrectly instructed a client that he need not appear in court for trial provided incompetent representation (E) holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client

Output: holding that under texas law the mere representation of a party in a lawsuit does not establish privity between an attorney and his or her client

Input: Consider Input: Specifically, the EEOC regulations interpreting the Act provide that, in determining whether a claimant is disabled because he is significantly restricted in his ability to perform "either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes," a court may consider: The job from which the individual has been disqualified because of an impairment, and the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified because of the impairment (class of jobs). 29 C.F.R. 1630.20)(3)(ii)(B) (emphasis added). In making this determination, the reviewing court must decide whether the plaintiff is restricted in his or her ability to perform ei stems, Inc., 101 F.3d 346, (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). KCC argues on appeal that Burns's lifting
Holding statements: (A) holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity (B) holding as a matter of law that a twentyfive pound lifting limitation particularly when compared to an average persons abilities does not constitute a significant restriction on ones ability to lift work or perform any other major life activity (C) holding that a lifting restriction did not substantially limit a computer technicians ability to engage in the major life activity of working (D) holding plaintiff with carpal tunnel syndrome who could not perform heavy lifting failed to meet burden of establishing substantial limitation in major life activity of work (E) holding that a twentyfive pounds lifting restriction did not substantially limit any major life activities

Output: holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity

Input: Consider Input: of his convictions were for minor offenses, such as multiple trespasses. But the district court concluded that these offenses showed repeat criminal activity and "a person who has no respect for the law and thinks that he can do whatever he wants to do." It was within the district court's "wide discretion" and "substantial latitude" to determine the weight of each factor in sentencing Griffin-Cooke. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir.2013). The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Griffin-Cooke five months above the Guidelines range. This court, finding the variance not substantively unreasonable, need not address Griffin-Cooke's objections to the upward departure. See, e.g., United States v. Grandon, 714 F.3d 1093, 1098 (8th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008,
Holding statements: (A) holding that an upward variance or departure in the sentence imposed on a career offender based on 3553a factors including criminal history was substantively and procedurally reasonable (B) holding that district courts error was not harmless because the court relied on an improper factor in imposing an upward departure (C) holding district court did not impermissibly engage in triple or quadruplecounting when it relied on prior convictions to determine that the sixteenlevel enhancement applied in calculating the criminal history category in departing upward and in varying upward (D) holding harmless any error in departing upward under ussg 4a13 where district court alternatively imposed reasonable sentence as an upward variance (E) holding that the district court violated fedrcrimp 32 by departing upward in sentence without notice and the psr identified no grounds for departure
Output: holding that an upward variance or departure in the sentence imposed on a career offender based on 3553a factors including criminal history was substantively and procedurally reasonable