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: a factor listed in this subpart, departure from the applicable guideline range is warranted only if the factor is present to a degree substantially in excess of that which ordinarily is involved in the offense. U.S.S.G. 5K2.0, p.s. Indeed, we have recognized the possibility of departure beyond the adjustments made available by U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 (aggravating role) and 3B1.2 (mitigating role), based upon a defendant's extraordinary role with respect to the offense of conviction. See United States v. Joyner, 924 F.2d 454, 461 (2d Cir.1991) (acknowledging possibility of role "so extraordinarily minute that [defendants] deserved a departure beyond the four-level maximum reduction available for 'minimal' participation"); United States v. Colon, 905 F.2d 580, 585-86 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Bierley, 922 F.2d 1061,
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that where there are other persons who are criminally responsible for the offense who have not been apprehended or have not been charged due to cooperation a sole defendant may be eligible for an upward or downward adjustment for role in the offense (B) holding that within these parameters apprendi permits an upward adjustment for a defendants role in a drugtrafficking conspiracy (C) recognizing potential upward adjustment beyond that provided by guidelines for aggravating role in the offense (D) holding that role in the offense is a factual determination albeit complex a district courts decision not to apply an adjustment based on such a determination is reversed only for clear error (E) holding that a defendant convicted of a soleparticipant offense may nonetheless be entitled to a mitigating role adjustment

Output: recognizing that where there are other persons who are criminally responsible for the offense who have not been apprehended or have not been charged due to cooperation a sole defendant may be eligible for an upward or downward adjustment for role in the offense

Input: Consider Input: removed. Section 141(b) does not contemplate that a director's term could end through board shrinkage. A bylaw that seeks to achieve this result conflicts with Section 141(b) and is void. This interpretation of Section 141(b) comports with how our law has developed. Under the common law, "the voluntary assumption of management responsibility by the directors carried with it a concomitant vested right to serve out the full term for which they were elected unless there was cause for removal...." Drexler, supra, 13.01, at 13-2; see Roven v. Cotter, 547 A.2d 603, 608 (Del.Ch.1988) ("At common law a director had a vested right in his position arising from his duties and responsibilities to the corporation."); see also Campbell v. Loew's, Inc., 134 A.2d 852, 857 (Del.Ch.1957) (Seitz, C.) (<HOLDING>). "Prior to 1967, the [DGCL] was silent as to
Holding statements: (A) holding that a direct action could not be maintained because the declaration does not allege the violation of any right personal to plaintiff but only violation of rights common to all the stockholders (B) recognizing common law authority of stockholders to remove a director for cause (C) recognizing common law privileges (D) recognizing the presidents authority to remove sec members for good cause despite governing statutes silence (E) recognizing common law cause of action as thirdparty beneficiary

Output: holding that a direct action could not be maintained because the declaration does not allege the violation of any right personal to plaintiff but only violation of rights common to all the stockholders

Input: Consider Input: and protected by state law, and we have repeatedly ruled that the procedural guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment apply whenever the State seeks to remove or significantly alter that protected status .... It was this alteration, officially removing the interest from the recognition and protection previously afforded by the State, which we found sufficient to invoke the procedural guarantees contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Paul, 424 U.S. at 710-11, 96 S.Ct. at 1165 (citations and footnote omitted). The Court also pointed out that other interests are "protected not by virtue of their recognition by the law of a particular State but because they are guaranteed in one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which has been 'incorporated' in 2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Procopio v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 325, 329 (7th
Holding statements: (A) holding the foster parent did not possess a liberty interest in her relationship with the foster child (B) recognizing that foster parents do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a continued relationship with their foster child (C) holding that the trial court did not err in finding that a trust relationship existed between a foster mother and foster child where it found that the child immediately became attached to the foster mother and was confiding in her when she made statements admitted under the hearsay exception (D) holding foster parents not liable for willful act of their foster child (E) holding there is no protected liberty interest in maintaining the foster family relationship
Output: recognizing that foster parents do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a continued relationship with their foster child