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Example Input: unpublished decisions, "[njoticeably absent from the list of factors Pruitt instructs district courts to consider are the merits and substance of the pro se plaintiffs claim." Rivera v. Kettle Moraine Correctional Inst., No. 14-C-6, 2014 WL 2875897, at *4 (E.D. Wis. June 24, 2014); Kennedy v. Huibregtse, No. 13-C-4, 2014 WL 4924662, at *15 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2014). On appeal from an adverse judgment in a case where the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion to recruit; the Court of Appeals will consider whether "there is a reasonable likelihood that the presence of counsel would have made a difference in the outcome of the litigation" in assessing whether the district court's abuse of its discretion was prejudicial. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 659 (italics original r. 2002) (<HOLDING>); Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir.
Holding statements: (A) holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation (B) holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (C) holding that prisoner must allege acts or omissions evidencing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (D) holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs (E) holding that plaintiffs claim must have arguable merit meaning that plaintiffs allegations clearly state a nonfrivolous prima facie case of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and that the already established evidence indicates more than an extremely slim chance of success on the merits
Example Output: holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation

Example Input: will "potentially eliminat[e] a substantial expenditure of time, resources, and money of the parties, their counsel, and the Court that may later be determined to have been unnecessary." Pis.' Br. filed Nov. 19, 2007, at 9. Because the opinion and order meets all of the requirements for certification, the court, in its discretion, grants plaintiffs' motion to certify an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, as follows: 1. The paragraph of the ordering language on page 25 in the court's November 9, 2007 opinion and order is amended, as follows: Defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied. Because controlling questions of law are involved with respect to which there are substantial grounds for di 5)
Holding statements: (A) holding that gross income can include interest or dividends accruing to fathers ira (B) holding that an overstatement of basis can constitute an omission from gross income within the meaning of irc 6501e1a (C) holding that trial judge has discretion to not include bonuses as part of gross income if he or she determines that the bonus income is not dependable or would place a hardship on a parent (D) holding gross receipts provision provides exception for trade or business to general meaning of gross income provided in section 61a so reporting of gross proceeds alone from sales of commodities would not prevent application of irc 6501e1a (E) holding gross receipts provision to supply exception to general definition of gross income in case of trade or business and applying irc 6501e1a to omission of income
Example Output: holding that gross income can include interest or dividends accruing to fathers ira

Example Input: 1. Defendant argues that the district court erred in not granting him a mistrial after it allowed the government to question Jose Colon-Maldonado (Colon) about the charged conspiracy. The court gave a curative instruction after the evidence was wrongfully admitted, and the fact that the jury acquitted Defendant of Counts One and Two indicates that the jury followed the instruction. See United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1206 (9th Cir.2004). 2. After the rebuttal witnesses testified, the trial court gave a curative instruction directing the jury to disregard the testimony. There is no evidence in the record that the curative instruction failed to alleviate any prejudice to the Defendant. See United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1140 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 3. The district court did not abuse its
Holding statements: (A) holding that any prejudice resulting from a misstatement of the law by the prosecutor was cured by trial courts proper instruction on applicable law (B) holding that instruction to disregard cured error from prosecutors improper comment during voir dire (C) holding that prosecutorial blunder did not prejudice the defendant as the blunder was effectively cured by the instruction to the jury to disregard it (D) holding that the prejudicial effect of a direct reference to an accuseds failure to testify normally cannot be cured by an instruction to disregard (E) holding almost any improper argument may be cured by an instruction to disregard
Example Output:
holding that any prejudice resulting from a misstatement of the law by the prosecutor was cured by trial courts proper instruction on applicable law