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: to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case." E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3); see Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. Cnty. of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir.2004). Here, the district court found that Moniz "simply is attempting to re-argue [] issues which were already ruled upon by the Court when it dismissed his Complaint," and thus denied the motion to reconsider. R. 14 (Dist. Ct. Order at 3) (Page ID # 129). This court has stated that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider where the motion "merely raise[s] arguments that were already ruled upon." Graham, 358 F.3d at 385; see also Lommen v. McIntyre, 125 Fed.Appx. 655, 659 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). There was no abuse of discretion in the
Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing (B) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (D) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for reconsideration where the motion presented nothing new and merely rephrased allegations in the complaint (E) holding under third circuit law that the denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion

Output: holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing

Input: Consider Input: with intent to murder"; therefore, the two convictions did not violate double jeopardy. Id. In addition to comparing the statutory elements of an offense both in the abstract under Blockburger and as applied to the facts of the particular case under Duchac, courts consider other factors relevant to ascertaining legislative intent. These factors include the following: (1) whether there were multiple victims involved; (2) whether several discrete acts were involved; and (3) whether the evil at which each offense is directed is the same or different. As we noted in Goins, "generally, if a criminal episode involves several victims who have personally been victimized, the evidence could sustain multiple convictions." Goins, 705 S.W.2d at 651 (citing State v. Irvin, 603 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn.1980)(<HOLDING>)). In Goins, however, we held that the multiple
Holding statements: (A) holding that a single transaction involving multiple obscene materials constitutes but one offense (B) holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured (C) holding that multiple convictions under 924c cannot be based on offenses forming a single unit of prosecution (D) holding that killing more than one person in a single automobile accident justified multiple homicide convictions (E) holding that a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses under 922g on the basis that he belonged to more than one prohibited class or that he simultaneously possessed more than one firearm

Output: holding that a single transaction involving multiple obscene materials constitutes but one offense

Input: Consider Input: to present their objections." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). 20 In this case, appellants were not given the time, place, or date of the final adoption hearing. Because they were not given notice of, and thus did not appear at, the final adoption hearing, appellants were also not afforded an opportunity to be heard. While the court may consolidate adoption petitions and determine that "one petition is the primary matter to be decided," In re Adoption of A.B., 991 P.2d 70, 1999 UT App 315 at 14, notice must nevertheless be given t appellate review that the nature and extent of an opinion rendered by an appellate court is largely discretionary with that court"). Cf. Reese v. Reese, 1999 UT 75, 8, 984 P.2d 987 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION 22 We remand the issue of
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review (B) holding that a state court criminal judgment is final for purposes of collateral attack in federal court at the conclusion of review in the united states supreme court or when the time for seeking certiorari review expires (C) holding in a similar case that certiorari was the proper vehicle for review (D) holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available (E) holding that for purposes of certiorari review court of appeals must identify the basis for refusing to treat an issue
Output: recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review