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: negligence placed the plaintiff...." Brown v. Philadelphia Coll, of Osteopathic Med., 449 Pa.Super. 667, 674 A.2d 1130, 1135-36 (1996). Russell's actions were intentional, not negligent. The impact rule, which depends upon the negligence of a defendant, is therefore inapposite to this case. 7 . Because DiSalvio's federal cause of action survives Russell's Motion to Dismiss, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over DiSalvio's remaining state law claims. 9 . Unlike the School District Defendants, Russell has not argued that this tort is unavailable to plaintiffs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 10 . The Court similarly rejects Russell's argument that DiSalvio cannot recover punitive damages from him under her 1983 claim. See Coleman v. Kaye, 87 F.3d 1491, 1497 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 11 . DiSalvio suggests that Magill should
Holding statements: (A) holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda (B) holding that punitive damages may be imposed against employer for tortious conduct of employee (C) holding that punitive damages may be awarded under 1983 when the defendants conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others (D) holding that a supervisor with no personal involvement may be liable for the constitutional violation of a subordinate for culpable action or inaction in the training supervision or control of his subordinates acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation or reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others (E) holding that since the complaint set out a deliberate indifference claim it follows logically that reckless or callous indifference has been noticed

Output: holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda

Input: Consider Input: a factor listed in this subpart, departure from the applicable guideline range is warranted only if the factor is present to a degree substantially in excess of that which ordinarily is involved in the offense. U.S.S.G. 5K2.0, p.s. Indeed, we have recognized the possibility of departure beyond the adjustments made available by U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 (aggravating role) and 3B1.2 (mitigating role), based upon a defendant's extraordinary role with respect to the offense of conviction. See United States v. Joyner, 924 F.2d 454, 461 (2d Cir.1991) (acknowledging possibility of role "so extraordinarily minute that [defendants] deserved a departure beyond the four-level maximum reduction available for 'minimal' participation"); United States v. Colon, 905 F.2d 580, 585-86 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Bierley, 922 F.2d 1061,
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that where there are other persons who are criminally responsible for the offense who have not been apprehended or have not been charged due to cooperation a sole defendant may be eligible for an upward or downward adjustment for role in the offense (B) holding that within these parameters apprendi permits an upward adjustment for a defendants role in a drugtrafficking conspiracy (C) recognizing potential upward adjustment beyond that provided by guidelines for aggravating role in the offense (D) holding that role in the offense is a factual determination albeit complex a district courts decision not to apply an adjustment based on such a determination is reversed only for clear error (E) holding that a defendant convicted of a soleparticipant offense may nonetheless be entitled to a mitigating role adjustment

Output: recognizing that where there are other persons who are criminally responsible for the offense who have not been apprehended or have not been charged due to cooperation a sole defendant may be eligible for an upward or downward adjustment for role in the offense

Input: Consider Input: that Chapter Thirteen plans may "modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor's principal residence." 11 U.S.C. 1322(b)(2) (emphasis added). Defendants concede that plaintiffs' claims are secured by liens on their principal residences. Therefore, the key issue is whether those hens constitute "security interests" for purposes of the antimodification provision of 1322(b)(2). The ich.1992) (finding antimodification provision of 1322(b)(2) inapplicable because creditor's interest in the principal residence of the debtor was a "hen," rather than a "security interest," based on the fact that it arose nonconsensually under state tax act); In re Venable, 48 B.R. 853, 856 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Mitchell, 39 B.R. 696, 700
Holding statements: (A) holding that 1322b2 prohibits modification of the interest rate on the loan on the debtors principal residence (B) holding that citys tax hen on debtors principal residence was modifiable despite 1322b2 because not consensual and thus not a security interest (C) holding that the determination of whether the debtor is using real property as his principal residence is made as of the petition date for the purposes of section 1322b2 (D) holding alternatively that rights of undersecured claimant could be modified notwithstanding 1322b2 because mortgagees security interest which attached to appliances machinery furniture and equipment whether fixtures or not was not secured only by a security interest in real property (E) holding modifiable a mechanics hen on debtors principal residence because it was a statutory hen
Output: holding that 1322b2 prohibits modification of the interest rate on the loan on the debtors principal residence