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:
that subsequent extraneous offenses are admissible to show a defendant's intent as to an earlier offense. See U.S. v. Germosen, 139 F.3d 120, 128 (2nd Cir.1998) (upholding admission of subsequent act under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent regarding charged offense and holding, "[t]he fact that the evidence involved a subsequent rather than prior act is of no moment"); U.S. v. Latney, 108 F.3d 1446, 1449 (D.C.Cir.) (construing Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and holding that it "draws no distinction b Austin 1990, no pet.) (same). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Russell's contention that the Vogt Street offense was not admissible simply because it occurred after the Fast Freddy's offense. Cf. Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 380 (<HOLDING>). Although, based on the authorities cited by
Holding statements: (A) holding that the grant of an injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion but without deference to the legal conclusions of the trial court (B) recognizing that an appellate court reviews a trial courts decision whether or not to grant equitable relief only for an abuse of discretion (C) holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion (D) holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (E) recognizing that an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts without reference to any guiding principles or rules

Ex Output:
holding that the grant of an injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion but without deference to the legal conclusions of the trial court

Ex Input:
the Bond offering because they underwrote the transaction and sold the Bonds to investors, either directly or through their brokers. Indeed, given the role of underwriters generally, Baird, Jones, and Stern "had a duty to make an to speak, they knew investors might rely on the statements made. The law firms' duty, however, must also be considered in light of the services they were retained to perform. Because Kutak and Stinson were not hired to opine on the feasibility of the Event Center, they cannot have been held to a duty to investigate or determine whether the financial projections were realistic unless these firms otherwise became involved in the making, preparing, or drafting of those projections. See N.Y. City Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Berry, 616 F.Supp.2d 987, 994 (N.D.Cal.2009) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, to the extent the law firms
Holding statements: (A) holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the 3553a factors or to discuss each of the 3553a factors (B) holding that substantial participation requires particular facts relating to each djefendants specific role in the preparation of each of the allegedly misleading statements (C) recognizing that questions of changed conditions and the amount of child support must be resolved on the particular facts of each case (D) holding that district court must conduct individualized assessment based on particular facts of each case (E) holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case

Ex Output:
holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the 3553a factors or to discuss each of the 3553a factors

Ex Input:
that ease were being introduced to show wrongdoing on occasions other than those which were the subjects of the government's indictment. (The government's indictment in that case was based on invalid prescriptions issued to undercover officers.) Here, however, there-is no violation of Rule 404(b) because the evidence was not introduced to show that Leal had done something illegal in the past and thus must have been guilty of the current offense. Rather, Leal was indicted partly on the basis of the evidence in those medical records. Moreover, it was Leal, not Dr. Sripinyo, who was on trial, making Jones inapposite. This case is more like United States v. Lash, 937 F.2d 1077, 1087 (6th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Ross v. United States, 502 U.S. 949, 112 S.Ct. 397, 116 L.Ed.2d 347 (1991) (<HOLDING>). The medical records in-this case could have
Holding statements: (A) holding there was no rule 404b violation where the evidence was admitted to show knowledge and knowledge was an element of the crime charged (B) holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper (C) holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law (D) holding that by including a knowledge element in two sections of a statute the legislature demonstrated that it knew how to express its intent to require a knowledge element rendering the absence of the element in another statute supportive of the inference that the legislature did not intend for there to be a knowledge element (E) holding admission of prior conviction under rule 404b appropriate where it was necessary to prove knowledge and a limiting instruction was given

Ex Output:
holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper