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.
--------
Question: the State argued that Wright and Jackson were the two shooters at the trials of Wright, Oglesby, and Jackson. The State denies that it presented mutually exclusive, false, or misleading evidence. It contends that the evidence permits two factual scenarios: the shooters were either Jackson and Wright or Jackson and defendant. This is not a case where the prosecutor destroyed the credibility of one witness to convict one defendant and then used that same witness to convict a co-defendant for the same crime. See, e.g., Drake v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1449 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020, 106 S.Ct. 3333, 92 L.Ed.2d 738 (1986). Nor is this a case where the prosecutor improperly argued facts that were unsupported by the evidence. Nichols v. Collins, 802 F.Supp. 66, 75 (S.D.Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>), habeas corpus denied, sub nom, Nichols v.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant may not state one ground at trial and another on appeal (B) holding that where trial court is trier of fact and has made an affirmative deadly weapon finding it retains discretion to enter finding in judgment (C) holding that although trial courts oral opinion may be used as a reference in the interpretation of its written findings of fact it is not a finding of fact (D) holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal (E) holding in case in which defendant challenged his murder conviction and death sentence on ground that states conflicting theories in the trial of his accomplice constituted a denial of due process that state may be constitutionally estopped from obtaining a fact finding in one trial and seeking and obtaining an inconsistent fact finding in another trial

Answer: holding that the defendant may not state one ground at trial and another on appeal

Question: Erickson-Puttmann concedes that her Title VII claim against Gill fails because Gill was not her employer. See e.g., Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Community Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 446, 447 (8th Cir.1997) ("Our Court quite recently has squarely held that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII." (citing Spencer v. Ripley County State Bank, 123 F.3d 690, 691-92 (8th Cir.1997) (per cu-riam))). Lenhardt v. Basic Inst, of Tech., Inc., 55 F.3d 377, 381 (8th Cir.1995) (noting that "[e]very circuit that has considered the issue ultimately has concluded that an employee, even one possessing supervisory authority, is not an employer upon whom liability can be imposed under Title VII."); Smith v. St. Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the court concludes that summary
Holding statements: (A) holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii (B) holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii (C) holding individual employees may be liable under title vii (D) holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii (E) holding that there is no individual liability under title vii

Answer: holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii

Question: American Airlines, Inc., 996 F.2d 1315, 1319 (1st Cir.1993) (finding doctrine not to apply because of "no breach of a special transport promise" and "no deviation from the kind of thing one might expect to find when a carrier has lost, damaged, or delayed cargo") (internal quotation omitted); United States Gold Corp. v. Federal Express Corp., 719 F.Supp. 1217, 1225 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (citing cases upholding validity of limitation of liability with respect to express carriers). None of the cases cited by Nippon are to the contrary. See, e.g., Coughlin v. TWA, 847 F.2d 1432, 1433-34 (9th Cir.1988) (breach of special contract provision to carry valuables in cabin) (per curiam); Nissan Fire & Marines Ins. Co. v. North American Van Lines, Inc., No. C-96-03621-VRQ, 1997 WL 81179 (N.D.Cal.1997) (<HOLDING>); Information Control Corp. v. United Airlines
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented (B) recognizing doctrine (C) recognizing but finding inapplicable pure question of law exception to doctrine of exhaustion (D) recognizing validity of doctrine but finding that the number of drivers is not such a safety measure (E) recognizing the validity of the singlelarceny doctrine in new mexico

Answer:
recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented