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 Input:
challenge to the amount of refund awarded by DOE to a third-party claimant even though they failed to intervene while DOE was deciding the third-party claimant's award"). Persistent, the defendant analogizes the instant APA claim with that denied in Brooks v. Snow, 313 F.Supp.2d 654 (S.D.Tex.2004). There, the plaintiffs sought a declaration from the court that Treasury Regulation 26 C.F.R. 301.722-1 (listing the grounds authorizing the IRS to settle a tax case) was inconsistent with congressional intent, because the regulation omitted delays caused by the IRS in determining tax liability. Id. at 658-59. The court dismissed their complaint, explaining that they had not "allege[d] they ever submitted any offers-in-compromise and, therefore, they have not upp. 239, 255 (Ct.Cl. 1947) (<HOLDING>). Second, and most crucially, this plaintiff
Holding statements: (A) holding that a refund may include additional taxes paid after the filing of a refund claim so long as the total does not exceed the portion of tax paid prior to the administrative claim (B) holding under section 7422a that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a taxpayers refund claim because the taxpayer failed to file a refund claim before the statute of limitations had run (C) holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted (D) holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate (E) holding that a subsequent refund request on reassessed taxes was unnecessary as the government already had notice of the plaintiffs claim

Ex Output:
holding that a refund may include additional taxes paid after the filing of a refund claim so long as the total does not exceed the portion of tax paid prior to the administrative claim

Ex Input:
rules or orders." Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 382.113(a). The legislature imposed only the two restrictions previously mentioned: an ordinance must be consistent with the Act and the commission's rules and orders and may not make unlawful a condition or act approved or authorized under the Act or the commission's rules or orders. Id. 382.113(b). If the ordinance violates one of these restrictions, however, then its preemption is implied with unmistakable clarity. We therefore turn next to the first of these restrictions and address the question of whether the Act and the ordinance are consistent. 3. The Clean Air Act and the tent with state legislation, we begin by comparing the purpose of each. See City of Weslaco v. Melton, 158 Tex. 61, 63-64, 308 S.W.2d 18, 19-20 (1958) (<HOLDING>); see also City of Brookside Vill. v. Comeau,
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute (B) holding state and federal actions not parallel for colorado river purposes because the remedies were different one was equitable and the other compensatory and the sources of law came from different states (C) holding that an implied warranty of merchantability does not create a labeling requirement different from or in addition to those mandated by fifra because the implied warranty of merchantability arises from the sale itself not from a state labeling regulation citation omitted (D) holding that completing sixth grade and a limited ability to read were not inconsistent with a valid iq score of 68 (E) holding that an ordinance banning the sale of grade a raw milk was not inconsistent with a state statute for grading and labeling milk because the two provisions served different purposes

Ex Output:
recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute

Ex Input:
an immigration judge's order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA's factual determinations, Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001), and review de novo due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of Echeverria-Ruiz's application for withholding of removal because she failed to establish that the guerrillas targeted her because of her political opinion or any other statutorily protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the record does not compel a
Holding statements: (A) holding that petitioners who apply for withholding of removal must establish that a statutorily protected ground was a reason for their persecution (B) holding that dangers arising from police work do not support a claim of persecution on account of a protected ground (C) holding that random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground (D) holding that harassment by the farc for refusing to cooperate with their demands for money did not establish a nexus to a statutorily protected ground (E) holding that persecution by militants for purpose of recruitment does not establish a nexus to a protected ground

Ex Output:
holding that petitioners who apply for withholding of removal must establish that a statutorily protected ground was a reason for their persecution