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.

Q: reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. In determining the purpose of section 13-21-101, it is appropriate to look to legislative history as indicative of the intent of the General Assembly. See, e.g., Willer, 817 P.2d at 519-20. The 1982 amendment to section 13-21-101 created the distinction between judgments which the judgment debtor appeals and those which the judgment debtor does not appeal. The General Assembly intended that the amendment, and its market-determined interest rate, apply only to judgments which the judgment debtor appeals. See Act of March 25, 1982, ch. 39, 1982 Colo. Laws 227 (entitled "An Act Concerning Interest Payable on Appealed Money Judgments in Civil Actions" (emphasis added)); see City of Ouray v. Olin, 761 P.2d 784, 789 (Colo. 1988) (<HOLDING>). The statements of the bill's sponsors also
Holding statements: (A) holding analogous circumstances conclusive of legislative intent (B) holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law (C) holding that the relevant intent is not the intent to return ultimately but the intent to return to the united states within a relatively short period (D) holding that the narrowing of the use of parnar claims only applies absent a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary and citing to hrs 37869 as an example of such legislative intent (E) holding that the title of legislation is relevant to legislative intent

A: holding analogous circumstances conclusive of legislative intent
****
Q: Center. v. National League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 974-75 (9th Cir.2007) (finding that Cedars-Sinai's claims were not preempted because they were "predicated not on the [service benefits] plan" but on a separate contract between the carrier and the medical services provider). Plaintiffs claim that Plaintiff never received compensation for the emergency care of B.G. directly relates to the processing and administration of the enrollee's covered claims which is governed by the Service Benefits Plan and the Contract between Blue Shield and OPM. Any obligation that Blue Shield could have to pay Plaintiff stems directly from the B.G.'s enrollment in the Service Benefit Plan and directly relates to the payment of B.G.'s benefits under the plan. See Hayes, 819 F.2d at 926 (<HOLDING>); Botsford, 314 F.3d at 396 ("Because the
Holding statements: (A) holding that tort claims arising out of the manner in which a benefit claim is handled are preempted by fehba (B) holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba (C) holding state law claims arising out of unions refusal to readmit union members preempted by 301 (D) holding that fehba does not completely preempt state law (E) holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law

A: holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba
****
Q: portion of the district court's written judgment ordering as a special condition of supervised release that "upon completion of his term of imprisonment, the defendant is to be surrendered to a duly-authorized immigration official for deportation." The district court did not mention this provision at the sentencing hearing, and the Government concedes that it conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence. We agree. The condition imposed is not listed in the sentencing guidelines as a standard or mandatory condition of supervised release, and it is not among the conditions recommended by the Sentencing Commission insofar as the record does not support its application here. See U.S.S.G. 5D1.3(c) & (d)(6); see also United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 938 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The written judgment improperly conflicts
Holding statements: (A) holding that a conflict with oral pronouncement is not creat ed by including conditions that are standard mandatory or recommended by the sentencing commission (B) holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls (C) holding that written judgment controlled over oral pronouncement (D) holding that when there is a variation between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written memorialization of the sentence the oral pronouncement controls (E) holding that imposition occurs at time of oral pronouncement

A:
holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls
****