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.
--------
Question: 39:4-88(b), the mandate to drive within a single lane to the extent practicable applies, whether or not a deviation from that lane imposes a risk to another driver. The statute's second clause addresses a related, but discrete, mandate of the Code. It requires a driver to ascertain the safety of switching lanes before conducting a lane change. N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b). Unlike the violation described in the first clause of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), the violation described in the second clause is avoided if a driver, in a roadway with multiple lanes traveling in the same direction, first determines that departure from a lane may be conducted safely. The Appellate Division's limitation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b) to the violation identified in the statute's second clause would render t .App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the courts of our sister states,
Holding statements: (A) holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness (B) holding that tex transp code ann 545060a describes one offense (C) holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony (D) holding that an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime need not allege the elements of the latter offense (E) holding that the statute describes but one offense which can be committed by either or both of two methods

Answer: holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness

Question: Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") because Erickson failed to allege specific facts showing a pattern of racketeering activity. See Sanford v. Member-Works, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 557-58 (9th Cir.2010) (discussing elements of a.RICO claim and particularity requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)). The district court properly dismissed Erickson's claims under the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ("RES-PA") and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") as time-barred because Erickson filed his action more than three years after the alleged violations. See 12 U.S.C. 2614 (prescribing at most a three-year statute of limitations for violations of RES-PA); 15 U.S.C. 1640(e) (an action for damages under TILA must be brought within one year of the alleged violation); see also King, 784 F.2d at 915 (<HOLDING>). However, after the district court dismissed
Holding statements: (A) holding fiveyear limitation period in 28 usc 2462 runs from date of predicate violation not from date of administrative assessment of sanction (B) holding limitations period for filing petition for postconviction relief runs from date of final judgment not from date of subsequent order revoking appeal bond (C) holding that oneyear period runs from the discovery of the transfer (D) holding that the limitations period in section 1640e runs from the date of consummation of the transaction (E) holding under section 1144s predecessor statute that the 180day period runs from the date of the confirmation order even if the fraud is not discovered in the 180day period

Answer: holding fiveyear limitation period in 28 usc 2462 runs from date of predicate violation not from date of administrative assessment of sanction

Question: voluntariness ruling at that time has obvious benefits. The evidence that was developed on the issue is fresh in the minds of counsel and the court, the issue is fully ripe for decision, and a ruling at that time makes clear to both parties before trial the extent to which, if at all, the State may use the defendant's statement at trial. 5 . See Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 2650, 110 L.Ed.2d 528, 552 (1990). Note also the exceptions to Miranda that the Supreme Court announced in Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 296, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 2397, 110 L.Ed.2d 243, 251 (1990) (conversations between suspects and undercover agents admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings) and New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 656, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2631, 81 L.Ed.2d 550, 557 (1984) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Detective Barba's legally incorrect
Holding statements: (A) holding public safety exception to miranda warning requirement did not apply where there was no evidence gun had been left in public place (B) holding that miranda warnings were not required for suspect testifying at inquest when suspects lawyer had previously advised him of his privilege against selfincrimination (C) holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given (D) holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible (E) recognizing a public safety exception to the requirement that miranda warnings be given in order to use a suspects statement as evidence against him at trial

Answer:
holding public safety exception to miranda warning requirement did not apply where there was no evidence gun had been left in public place