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: apace notwithstanding an alien's parole status 'or possibility of arrest or further imprisonment.' " Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(4)(A)). The court determined that 1231(a)(4)(A) implicitly endorsed the proposition that "deportation leaves an existing term of parole intact" because "an alien may be deported and later face incarceration for violating his parole." Id. Therefore, the court held "that, under federal law, deportation does not automatically extinguish an existing term of parole." Id. Just as in Carrasco-Mateo, the Oregon court in the instant case did not lose authority over Barrera merely because he was deported. Id. This decision is in accord with other circuit courts that have addressed similar issues. See United States v. Phillips, 413 F.3d 1288, 1292 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Williams, 369 F.3d 250,
Holding statements: (A) holding that deportation did not cut short appellants parole term regardless of appellants subjective beliefs (B) holding that deportation does not extinguish term of parole (C) holding that appellants privacy interests under the us and texas constitutions were not invaded when officer walked up appellants driveway to allow drug dog to sniff appellants garage door (D) holding that parole survives deportation (E) holding officers articulated reasonable suspicion justified appellants contin ued detention to await canine unit when officer suspected appellant of drug trafficking based on appellants prior arrests for drug offenses appellants lie about his prior criminal history and appellants possession of small jewelers bags used in cocaine trafficking

A: holding that deportation does not extinguish term of parole
****
Q: even if the 1993 judgment was final and appealable, they may challenge the merits of the 1993 judgment in this appeal from the 1995 order. This appeal is untimely only if the District Court's 1993 decision which ordered only that ISP submit a plan to remedy the constitutional flaws in its policy was a final judgment, appealable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We believe that the District Court's 1993 order was no more final under 1291 than the one at issue in Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist., 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir.1987), which held that a district court order to a school district to submit a plan to remedy an unconstitutional atmosphere of racial hostility was not an appealable final judgment. Id. at 539; see also Hendrickson v. Griggs, 856 F.2d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The November 1995 judgment is, therefore, the
Holding statements: (A) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (B) holding that the modification or dissolution of an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding is appealable as a matter of right under 1292a1 (C) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable (D) holding injunction ordering prison to submit plan for reformation of unconstitutional prison conditions not appealable as interlocutory order under 28 usc 1292a1 (E) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable

A: holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
****
Q: have motivated their actions in other areas of the system." Keyes, 413 U.S. at 208, 93 S.Ct. 2686. Plaintiffs quote Dayton II for the proposition that such a system is "under a continuing duty to eradicate the effects of that system, and [ ]. the system-wide nature of the violation furnished pri-ma facie proof that current segregation in the [ ] schools was caused at least in part by prior intentionally segregative official acts." Dayton II, 443 U.S. at 536, 99 S.Ct. 2971 (internal citation omitted). Keyes and Dayton II were ongoing school desegregation cases that involved purposeful discrimination by school systems attempting to avoid their affirmative obligation to undo systemic discrimination under Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 495, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) (Brown I) (<HOLDING>) and Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 301,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the classofone equal protection theory has no place in the public employment context (B) holding that the concept of separate but equal has no place in public education (C) holding section 625 only requires a showing that the conduct was done in a place that is open to the public or where the public has a right to be (D) holding that segregation in public education is a denial of equal protection of the laws (E) holding that wisconsin violated equal protection rights of handicapped children by denying them an education at public expense

A:
holding that the classofone equal protection theory has no place in the public employment context
****