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]: waived those rights. Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements. Defendant argues that the trial court made numerous errors in its order. Generally, an appellate court's review of a trial court's order on a motion'to suppress is limited to a determination of whether its findings are supported by competent evidence and, in turn, whether the findings support the trial court's ultimate conclusions of law. E.g., State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). However, here, as noted above, the State argues that defendant failed to preserve the issue because he did not object at trial. Defendant coun ters that no objection was necessary, distinguishing our recent opinion in State v. Oglesby, 361 N.C. 550, 554, 648 S.E.2d 819, 821 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Defendant's contention is that the judge who
Holding statements: (A) holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review (B) holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal (C) holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial (D) holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal (E) holding that a trial courts evidentiary ruling on a pretrial motion is not sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal unless a defendant renews the objection during trial
[A]: holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review

[Q]: options," including by streamlining communication between the distressed borrower and foreclosing party. See Assemb. B. 278, 2011-2012 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2012); S.B. 900, 2011-2012 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2012). There has been a wave of litigation in state and federal courts challenging various aspects of the MERS System. Almost all of the relevant law is state rather than federal. The results under state law have been inconsistent. See Weber, supra, at 246-56 (cataloguing the "schizophrenic position of state courts" on issues relating to the MERS System). Some state supreme courts have upheld the MERS System on issues ranging from foreclosure authority to recording requirements. See, e.g., Renshaw v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 155 Idaho 656, 315 P.3d 844, 846-47 (2013) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys.,
Holding statements: (A) holding that mers lacked standing to foreclose as the lenders nominee (B) holding that because mers receives no payments on the debt it is not the beneficiary even though it is so designated in the deed of trust (C) holding that mers is an ineligible beneficiary within the terms of the washington deed of trust act if it never held the promissory note or other debt instrument secured by the deed of trust and that characterizing mers as the beneficiary has the capacity to deceive and may give rise to an action under the consumer protection act (D) holding that mers may be a beneficiary as nominee for the lender that assignments of the deed of trust between mers members need not be recorded that mers was not liable to the borrower in negligence and that the idaho consumer protection act did not provide a cause of action to the borrower (E) holding that mers was not the beneficiary of a deed of trust under the oregon trust deed act absent conveyance to mers of the beneficial right to repayment and that mers could not hold or transfer legal title to the deed as the lenders nominee
[A]: holding that mers lacked standing to foreclose as the lenders nominee

[Q]: was accompanied by an actual record that corroborated the summary contained in the certificate. Under these circumstances, Murphy's rights secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment were not violated. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. 1 . Title 29-A M.R.S. 2412-A(1-A) (2008) has since been amended. P.L. 2009, ch. 297 1 (effective Sept. 12, 2009) (codified at 29-A M.R.S. 2412-AO-A) (2009)). Title 29-A M.R.S. 2412-A(1-A) states in relevant part: 1-A. Offense; penalty. A person commits operating while license suspended or revoked if that person: A. Operates a motor vehicle on a public way or in a parking area when that person's license has been suspended or revoked, and that person: (1) Has received written notice of a suspension or revocati P.3d 990, 996-97 (2007) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See United States v. Garcia, 452 F.3d
Holding statements: (A) holding that the admission of a certified document stating that defendants license was suspended was nontestimonial (B) holding that a certified abstract of a defendants driving record was nontestimonial (C) holding that certified records of maintenance are nontestimonial and are not prepared for any particular defendant (D) holding that a certified letter verifying that a defendant did not have a valid drivers license was nontestimonial and that washington courts have long recognized the inherent reliability and admissibility of driving records (E) holding that driving records were nontestimonial
[A]:
holding that the admission of a certified document stating that defendants license was suspended was nontestimonial