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.

Apr. 14, 2011). Accord Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 274 (2d Cir.2009) (dismissing a retaliation claim whose only causal basis was a letter that plaintiff wrote many weeks before the allegedly retaliatory acts, implicating officers other than named defendants). See also Def. Mem. at 11 ("[A] claim that one defendant took action against the plaintiff in retaliation for a complaint made against a different [officer] [should be] viewed with particular skepticism."). 40 . Def, Mem. at 17. 41 . See id. (citing exclusively to Eighth Amendment cases). 42 .Id. 43 . See Wright, 554 F.3d at 274. 44 . Def. Mem. at 18. 45 . Def. Mem. at 19. 46 . Davis, 320 F.3d at 353. 47 . Dawes, 239 F.3d at 493. 48 . Compare Hofelich v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 1369, 2010 WL 1459740, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2010) (<HOLDING>), with Rembert v. Cheverko, No. 12 Civ. 9196,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs placement on paid administrative leave constituted an adverse action for purposes of a first amendment retaliation claim (B) holding that a verbal threat of being fired is not an adverse employment action for purposes of title vii (C) holding that verbal threats if they are specific can constitute adverse action for retaliation purposes (D) holding that a suspension with pay may constitute materially adverse action for the purposes of retaliation claims depending on the facts of the case (E) holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action
holding that the plaintiffs placement on paid administrative leave constituted an adverse action for purposes of a first amendment retaliation claim

to facilitate William's pick ups and returns of the children. The record reflects that Lacey, out of distrust, often would record her interactions with William. William admitted that he routinely avoids interaction with Lacey unless necessary. After reviewing the record under the applicable standard of review, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the circumstances of the children or a conservator have materially and substantially changed since rendition of the divorce decree and that it is in the children's best interests to modify the decree to give Lacey the exclusive right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment of the children. See Swaab v. Swaab, 282 S.W.3d 519, 534 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (<HOLDING>); Baltzer, 240 S.W.3d at 477 (holding that
Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction (B) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting mother the exclusive right to consent to all psychiatric and psychological treatment of the child (C) holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time (D) holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial (E) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the surname of the child where the court made factual findings that the name change would be in the best interest of the child
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction

in Palmieri v. State, 745 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which certified conflict with the opinions in McKnight v. State, 727 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), approved, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000), and Woods v. State, 740 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved sub nom. State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Palmieri challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act ("the Act") on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by previous opinions of this Court. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to the Act and holding that the Act violates neither the single subject rule for legislation nor principles of equal protection); State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the decision in Palmieri is
Holding statements: (A) holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved (B) holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law (C) holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act (D) holding that the act violates neither separation of powers nor principles of due process by allowing a victim veto that precludes application of the act as well as holding that the act is not void for vagueness and does not constitute a form of cruel or unusual punishment (E) holding that dna act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the fifth amendment
holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved