You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit hostage taking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1203, and conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(l)(A)(v)(I)(II). We previously held that Avilez-Zamora's plea agreement waived his right to appeal all aspects of his sentence, except for the court's application of grouping under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Avilez-Zamora, 168 Fed.Appx. 803 (9th Cir.2006) (unpublished decision). Avilez-Zamora does not raise any challenge to grouping in his briefs. Accordingly, the law of this case dictates that the appeal waiver in Avilez-Zamora's plea agreement precludes this current appeal. See id.-, see also Snow-Erlin v. United States, 470 F.3d 804, 807 (2006) (<HOLDING>). DISMISSED. ** This disposition is not
Holding statements: (A) holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive (B) holding that the appellate court does not reconsider matters resolved on a prior appeal (C) recognizing the general rule that an appellate court will not address matters that were not raised or decided in the trial court (D) recognizing appellate court may not reverse a summary judgment on a basis not raised by the appellant on appeal (E) recognizing rule that appellate court may not consider matters outside the record is so elemental that there is no excuse for any attorney to attempt to bring such matters before the court
Output:
holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive