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: comprehensive plan nor its land use regulations prohibited the development of so-called non-jurisdictional wetlands. On August 17 or 18, 2006, Rish began to clear and fill his property. The neighbors, including Johnson, protested to the County, but to no avail. On August 21, 2006, these parties filed a complaint seeking in-junctive relief alleging that the clearing violated Gulf County's comprehensive plan because it failed to maintain a 50-foot buffer for the wetlands. The neighbors alleged standing under section 163.3215(3), Florida Statutes (2006). The trial court dismissed the complaint ruling that Johnson and the other neighbors did not possess standing to seek relief under section 163.3215. This court reversed. Johnson v. Gulf County et al., 965 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Throughout this litigation, Rish proceeded to
Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the case without allowing appellants an opportunity to amend (B) holding trial court abused its discretion when it struck the appellants intervention (C) recognizing that although leave to amend generally should be freely granted that decision is left to the district courts discretion and as in the present case not only was there no abuse of discretion it appears that appellants never properly requested an opportunity to amend in the district court (D) holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint (E) holding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing expert testimony that directly linked the characteristics of sexually abused children to the complainants in this case

Output: holding trial court abused its discretion when it struck the appellants intervention

Input: Consider Input: even if the 1993 judgment was final and appealable, they may challenge the merits of the 1993 judgment in this appeal from the 1995 order. This appeal is untimely only if the District Court's 1993 decision which ordered only that ISP submit a plan to remedy the constitutional flaws in its policy was a final judgment, appealable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We believe that the District Court's 1993 order was no more final under 1291 than the one at issue in Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist., 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir.1987), which held that a district court order to a school district to submit a plan to remedy an unconstitutional atmosphere of racial hostility was not an appealable final judgment. Id. at 539; see also Hendrickson v. Griggs, 856 F.2d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The November 1995 judgment is, therefore, the
Holding statements: (A) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (B) holding that the modification or dissolution of an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding is appealable as a matter of right under 1292a1 (C) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable (D) holding injunction ordering prison to submit plan for reformation of unconstitutional prison conditions not appealable as interlocutory order under 28 usc 1292a1 (E) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable

Output: holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable

Input: Consider Input: "[E]ven a ten percent chance of persecution may establish a well-founded fear." Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2001); see also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 440, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Considering now the State Department Country Reports submitted by Zhou addressing forced sterilization reports that the IJ did not consider when it found Zhou's fear of future persecution incredible and that the BIA did not consider on review that probability of future persecution exists here. Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir.2010) ("The failure of the IJ and BIA to consider evidence of country conditions [consisting of a State Department country report] constitutes reversible error."); Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1147-48 (9th
Holding statements: (A) holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen (B) holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions (C) holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by giving summary consideration to evidence presented in a motion to reopen particularly when dealing with evidence which the bia is asked to repeatedly consider (D) holding that bia did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider an unauthenticated document submitted with a motion to reopen to show changed country conditions (E) holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it
Output: holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen