You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

he might have also attended other meetings where the Application was discussed, but he could not remember. After the Application was filed, D'Antonio and his staff assisted Applicant in drafting a public notice to be published in local newspapers pursuant to the statute. Once the notice was published, D'Antonio's next contact with the Application was when he reviewed the findings and recommendations of the hearing examiner in his capacity as the State Engineer. Neither he nor any of his personnel assisted in drafting the Application. {70} Protestants rely on Reid and cite to other cases for the proposition that hearing officials like D'Antonio should be recused when there is an "appearance of bias." See City of Albuquerque v. Chavez, 1997-NMCA-054, 15-16, 123 N.M. 428, 941 P.2d 509 (<HOLDING>); see also Reid, 1979-NMSC-005, 5 (holding
Holding statements: (A) holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave (B) holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable (C) holding that recusal is appropriate when a reasonable person would seriously doubt the hearing officers objectivity (D) holding that denial of a prerevocation parole violation hearing harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (E) holding potential prejudice caused by equating reasonable doubt with a substantial doubt mitigated by providing an alternate definition of reasonable doubt as a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act
Output:
holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave