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.

[Q]: purpose of this Memorandum is to explain why the Court declined to do these things. As disclosed by plaintiff in its ex parte motion, the sale of decoding devices like those defendants are claimed to have offered and sold is prohibited by federal criminal statute, see 47 U.S.C. 553(b), as well as by Illinois criminal statute, see 720 ILCS 5/16-10(a)(4). Under the circumstances, information disclosing defendants' purchases and sales of the devices, the revenues obtained from those sales, the assets they now have that may have been derived from those sales, and the locations where they keep their records and other descrambling devices is, without question, information that might tend to incriminate the defendants. See, e.g., FTC v. H.N. Singer, Inc., 668 F.2d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); SEC v. Rehtorik, 755 F.Supp. 1018, 1019
Holding statements: (A) holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government (B) holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment (C) holding that abrogating the right to sell endangered eagles feathers did not implicate the fifth amendment (D) holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege (E) recognizing that preliminary injunction requiring defendant to disclose records might implicate fifth amendment
[A]: holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government

[Q]: of the evidence. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 511, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. In interpreting Hicks, supra, the Second Circuit has stated definitively as follows: [Defendant] misreads the Supreme Court's statement in Hicks that once a defendant produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his or her action, the plaintiff must then establish that the defendant's actions were intentionally discriminatory. [Defendant] takes this statement as requiring the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence after the defendant's production evidence beyond that presented in the plaintiffs prima facie case. Justice Scalia took pains to preclude such an interpretation of the Court's decision when he observed that, upon rejection of the defendant's proffered reasons for its action , 142 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1189, 127
Holding statements: (A) holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence (B) holding that former employer met its burden of proof that ubc exception applied (C) holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant (D) holding plaintiffs ultimate burden of proof can be met by combining proof submitted in its prima facie case with evidence that defendants proffered reasons for its acts were false (E) recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous
[A]: holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence

[Q]: battery is to make "physical contact" without causing injury, and that physical contact does not have to be violent in nature. See, e.g., Illinois v. Peck, 260 Ill.App.3d 812, 198 Ill.Dec. 760, 633 N.E.2d 222, 223 (1994) (explaining that 720 ILCS 5/12-3 defines battery as making offensive contact with a victim "by any means," which encompasses spitting at a peace officer). Moreover, a simple battery involving nonviolent physical contact can become "aggravated" by the addition of facts that have nothing to do with physical force. A battery can be aggravated because it causes "great bodily harm," 720 ILCS 5/12-4(a), or because, as here, the victim is a "peace officer," 720 ILCS 5/12 4(b)(6) (2003); see Illinois v. Hale, 77 Ill.2d 114, 32 Ill.Dec. 548, 395 N.E.2d 929, 931-32 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Illinois v. McBrien, 144 Ill.App.3d 489, 98
Holding statements: (A) holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery (B) holding that aggravated battery of peace officer encompasses both insulting or provoking contact and battery resulting in bodily harm (C) holding that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated battery when the bodily member that is lost or rendered useless in the battery is a tooth (D) holding that aggravated battery is a lesser included offense of manslaughter (E) holding that under maryland common law an assault is an attempted battery an actual battery or a combination of the two
[A]:
holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery