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.

Example Input: It is axiomatic, however, that states act through their officials and agencies. Thus, under Will, those state agencies and other political subdivisions which carry out the state's business and have immunity from lawsuits under the Eleventh Amendment constitute "arms of the state." Pursuant to Will, such entities would not be considered persons under 1983. Those political subdivisions which are not provided immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, do not rise to the level of "arms of the state" and would, under Will, be considered to be persons for the purposes of 1983. See Barket, Levy & Fine v. St. Louis Thermal Energy Corp., 948 F.2d 1084, 1086-88 (8th Cir.1991) (bi-state agency is a "person" under 1983); Magula v. Broward Gen. Medical Ctr., 742 F.Supp. 645, 649 (S.D.Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). Since the Will decision was handed down, a
Holding statements: (A) holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment (B) holding that an ohio school district is more like a county or city than it is like an arm of the state and therefore it is not entitled to assert eleventh amendment immunity from suit (C) holding that the anne arundel board of education is an arm of the state for purposes of eleventh amendment immunity (D) holding that the puc is not an arm of the state and rejecting claim of immunity (E) holding that because hospital district is more like a municipality than an arm of the state hospital district did not have eleventh amendment immunity
Example Output: holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment

Example Input: trial, arguing the court improperly excluded its sole expert witness, Bolt, from testifying at trial. The court denied the motion, stating that it did not completely exclude Bolt from testifying at trial, "but rather determ limine serve as the basis for the rule that "error claimed in a court's ruling on a motion in limine is waived unless a timely objection is made when the evidence is offered at trial." State v. Alberts, 722 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State v. Tangie, 616 N.W.2d 564, 568 (Iowa 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Simkins v. City of Davenport, 232 N.W.2d 561, 565 (Iowa 1975). This is because the error only occurs, if at all, when the evidence is offered at trial and is either admitted or refused. State v. Langley, 265 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Iowa 1978) (<HOLDING>). There is, however, an exception to this
Holding statements: (A) holding that once a sentence is imposed it is a valid final judgment until it is reversed or vacated (B) holding that it is not (C) holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 (D) recognizing further normally the ruling is not a final one it is a red flag to counsel that the evidence is not to be brought before the jury unless and until it is separately taken up with the court at trial (E) holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence
Example Output: holding that once a sentence is imposed it is a valid final judgment until it is reversed or vacated

Example Input: his name and fingerprints. After obtaining this information, Holland was advised of his Miranda rights, and upon invoking his rights, the interview ceased. Several hours later, when the police determined that Holland had given them a false name (his fingerprints did not match the name Holland gave to the police), a detective went to Holland's cell and asked Holland for his real name, which Holland provided. Holland moved to suppress this statement. The Florida Supreme Court, relying on this Court's opinion in Avila v. State, 545 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (concluding that a question aimed at discovering the real name of a defendant is not an interrogation within the scope of Miranda ) and the Fifth District's opinion in State v. McAdams, 559 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>), concluded that because the detective's
Holding statements: (A) holding a social security number is not private (B) holding that a defendants use of a persons name and social security number without permission constituted the use of a means of identification without lawful authority (C) holding that basic identification data such as name age current address and social security number is not generally subject to miranda (D) holding that although the social security number in the information and the social security numbers in the previous convictions did not match the rest of the identifying information the first and last name and date of birth did match and was sufficient to establish the defendants identity particularly in light of the fact that the defendant did not claim he was not the individual named in the previous convictions (E) holding that a social security disability determination is a legal proceeding
Example Output:
holding a social security number is not private