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]: law did not authorize the arresting officer to require Turbyne to take a breath test when the blood test was unavailable. Gillett, 629 P.2d at 619 n. 10. Nor do our decisions in Gillett and Riley construe the statute as allowing the police to compel a different test when extraordinary circumstances prevent administration of the driver-selected test. The good cause exception we established in those cases applies to excuse the judicial sanction of dismissal of the charges when the police are prevented in circumstances beyond their control from administering the driver-selected test. As Shinaut and Dike demonstrate, when a driver selected to take the chemical test not initially selected, he or she may have voluntarily consented to the search of his or her person. Shinaut, 940 P.2d at 384 (<HOLDING>). When the controlling facts are undisputed, as
Holding statements: (A) holding that teachers request for four months leave was not a reasonable accommodation (B) holding that error in excluding a police officers report was harmless where the same evidence was presented by another witness (C) holding that a person must request a reasonable accommodation before he has been terminated he cannot wait until he is terminated and then months later request reinstatement and demand a reasonable accommodation (D) holding that erroneous accommodation of a citizens request by a police officer does not warrant the sanction of excluding evidence (E) holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada
[A]: holding that teachers request for four months leave was not a reasonable accommodation

[Q]: state witnesses regarding their credibility during the course of the trial in chief. Angela Sweat had negotiated with state prosecution involving armed robbery charges, the facts of the plea agreement for impeachment was not permitted by the trial court. This witness was the sole evidence against the petitioner and had the jury known of her motive to lie they would have found me not guilty of the armed robbery charges. This was a denial of my right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the jury would have found me not guilty. Generally, federal courts should not review a state trial judge's rulings with respect to the admissibility of evidence. Shaw v. Boney, 695 F.2d 528, 530 (11th Cir.1983). Even if the trial court' h Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Evidentiary rulings are within the broad
Holding statements: (A) holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge (B) holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity (C) holding that denigrating insanity defense was inappropriate (D) holding that where the sole defense was insanity excluded testimony was material a crucial critical and highly significant factor (E) holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense
[A]: holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge

[Q]: of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") summarily affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252. We review the IJ's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review. Herrera Estrada testified that anti-government guerrillas attempted to recruit her, and pushed her against a wall, where she hit her head, when she refused to join them. Although Herrera Estrada did suffer some harm, she failed to present sufficient evidence to compel a finding that the harm she suffered rose to the level of persecution. See e.g. Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th
Holding statements: (A) holding that insults harassment death threats and a beating did not compel eligibility for withholding of removal (B) holding that harassment threats and one beating did not constitute persecution (C) holding that threats standing alone generally do not constitute past persecution (D) holding that a minor beating even in conjunction with threats did not compel a finding of persecution (E) holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment
[A]:
holding that insults harassment death threats and a beating did not compel eligibility for withholding of removal