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: from the publisher. The United States Supreme Court has held that a New York City correctional facility rule prohibiting the receipt of hardcover books unless mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores is constitutional. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 550, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The correctional facility argued the rule was designed to promote security and order at the facility. Id. at 544, 99 S.Ct. 1861. The Supreme Court agreed, stating this "limited restriction is a rational response by prison officials to an obvious security problem." Id. at 550, 99 S.Ct. 1861. The Court agreed that hardcover books were especially convenient tools for smuggling contraband such as money, drugs, and weapons into a correctional facility and that these books are (<HOLDING>); Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 272 F.Supp.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (B) holding that prison administration may infringe upon prisoners first amendment rights as long as the infringement is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest (C) holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population (D) holding a publisheronly rule was constitutional because prison administrators are accorded deference and rule was reasonably related to the penological interest of maintaining internal prison security (E) holding that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests

A: holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests
****
Q: and to allow it to brief the issue of whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled as to potential opt-in plaintiffs in this action. ECF No. 14. The motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs response, and defendant's reply amount to the' very briefing of the issue that the motion seeks. See ECF Nos. 14, 15 and 16. It boils down to a simple proposition, succinctly summarized by Judge Blackburn in a case cited by the defendant: "Tolling is available' only 'when [a plaintiff] diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control.'" Young v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 11-cv-REB-MJW, 2013 WL 1223613, R *2 (D. Colo. March 25, 2013). Cf. Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). Here, we have a district court order in the
Holding statements: (A) holding that equitable tolling is available when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence (B) holding that 2244d is subject to equitable tolling if ae petitioner demonstrates 1 that he has been pursuing his rights diligently and 2 that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filling quoting pace v diguglielmo 544 us 408 418 125 sct 1807 161 led2d 669 2005 (C) holding that extraordinary circumstances did not include the mere neglect of the professional who was in a position to file a timely application (D) holding in a habeas case that tolling is available when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control (E) holding that ejquitable tolling is appropriate when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence

A: holding that equitable tolling is available when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence
****
Q: Furthermore, we are confident that the City does not contemplate returning to its prior zoning ordinance, given our strict disapproval of this type of governmental "flip-flopping." See Jews for Jesus v. Hillsborough County Aviation Auth., 162 F.3d 627, 630 (11th Cir.1998). In such an instance, the courthouse door would remain open for reinstatement of such a law suit. Id. We are convinced that since the City harbors no intentions of returning to the prior zoning ordinance this case does not fall within an exception that would require us to retain jurisdiction. REVERSED and REMANDED, with instructions to DISMISS for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 . In addition to this case, National also filed a second suit against the Ci 02 S.Ct. 867, 869, 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Kremens v. Bartley, 431 U.S. 119, 128-29, 97
Holding statements: (A) holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference (B) holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation (C) holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation (D) holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended (E) holding that universitys amendment of regulation made moot a challenge to regulations

A:
holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference
****