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: [u]nder [28 U.S.C.] 2254(d)(l)'s 'unreasonable application' clause, ... a federal habeas [corpus] court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable. Id. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Applying these standards to the present case, the court's inquiry must be whether the uit Court of Appeals case for the proposition that the application of a statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms does not violate the ex post facto clause because it is a protective measure and does not impose any new or different punishment. See United States v. O'Neal ("O'Neal"), 180 F.3d 115, 124-25 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (criticizing Davis). Additionally, the
Holding statements: (A) holding that state statutory bans against employment of convicted felons in certain jobs did not impose punishment under ex post facto clause (B) holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause (C) holding north carolina felony firearms act did not violate the ex post facto clause because it was a measured public safety provision and its applicability to previously convicted felons was eminently reasonable (D) holding that the ex post facto clause did not apply because the civil contempt citation was not punitive (E) holding that the alaska sex offender registration act did not violate the ex post facto clause

Output: holding that state statutory bans against employment of convicted felons in certain jobs did not impose punishment under ex post facto clause

Input: Consider Input: the jury during final jury instructions not to consider any testimony it had stricken or ordered the jury to disregard during trial. See United States v. Liburd, 607 F.3d 339, 344, 53 V.I. 890 (3d Cir. 2010) ("[W]hile curative instructions cannot repair every error, we do generally presume that juries follow their instructions."). Finally, as discussed above in section B, the People presented overwhelming evidence that Augustine was the individual who pulled a gun and started shooting at Officers Greaves, Wharton, and Allen. Based on these factors, Officer Wharton's statement given in response to a question would not have been sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial even if Augustine's attorney had requested one at trial. See Ethridge v. State, 418 P.2d 95, 100 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the Superior Court did
Holding statements: (A) holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt (B) holding mistrial not warranted for improper statement by police officer where court sustained defendants objection and admonished jury to disregard statement and where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt (C) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question (D) holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection and admonished the jury to disregard the statement (E) holding that while the prosecutors question was improper in light of the overwhelming evidence there was no reversible error in the denial of defendants motion for mistrial

Output: holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt

Input: Consider Input: to Guatemala to hold meetings with job applicants. Defendants also do not dispute that Eller has the authority to fire any individual employed by Eller and Sons Trees, although he normally delegates this duty to others. It is further e and hour matters at Eller and Sons Trees. In this regard, it is undisputed that Eller set up the pay structure for tree planters at Eller and Sons Trees. Eller has attended AWPA and FLSA compliance seminars on behalf of Eller and Sons Trees and has been the officer in charge of certifying the company's compliance with the provisions of those laws. Such facts have been considered significant by other courts in examining the issue of employer status. See Stout v. Smolar, Civil Action No. 1:05-CV- 1202-JOF, 2007 WL 2765519, at *5 (N.D.Ga. Sept.18, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Donohue v. Francis Servs., No. Civ.A. 04-170,
Holding statements: (A) holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime (B) holding that pleading was insufficient where the plaintiff failed to among other things set forth the dates of any fraudulent statements (C) holding individual defendant liable where he among other things made inquiries into the business obligations under the flsa (D) holding it error to admit testimony where among other things there was no evidence that defendants appearance had changed since the time of the robbery (E) holding that defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract
Output: holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime