instruction:
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:
apace notwithstanding an alien's parole status 'or possibility of arrest or further imprisonment.' " Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(4)(A)). The court determined that 1231(a)(4)(A) implicitly endorsed the proposition that "deportation leaves an existing term of parole intact" because "an alien may be deported and later face incarceration for violating his parole." Id. Therefore, the court held "that, under federal law, deportation does not automatically extinguish an existing term of parole." Id. Just as in Carrasco-Mateo, the Oregon court in the instant case did not lose authority over Barrera merely because he was deported. Id. This decision is in accord with other circuit courts that have addressed similar issues. See United States v. Phillips, 413 F.3d 1288, 1292 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Williams, 369 F.3d 250,
Holding statements: (A) holding that deportation did not cut short appellants parole term regardless of appellants subjective beliefs (B) holding that deportation does not extinguish term of parole (C) holding that appellants privacy interests under the us and texas constitutions were not invaded when officer walked up appellants driveway to allow drug dog to sniff appellants garage door (D) holding that parole survives deportation (E) holding officers articulated reasonable suspicion justified appellants contin ued detention to await canine unit when officer suspected appellant of drug trafficking based on appellants prior arrests for drug offenses appellants lie about his prior criminal history and appellants possession of small jewelers bags used in cocaine trafficking
answer:
holding that deportation does not extinguish term of parole

question:
its discretion by modifying the timesharing agreement without evidence that the welfare of the minor child would be promoted by returning him to his former school in Lake County and changing the timesharing arrangement to have the father assume the primary timesharing responsibilities. See 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2014); Holland v. Holland, 140 So.3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Dobbins v. Dobbins, 584 So.2d 1113, 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing. On remand, the court shall take evidence and use the best interests of the child standard to determine if modification is in the child's best interests in light of the parties' inability to agree which school the minor child will attend. See, e.g., Watt v. Watt, 966 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Once that determination is made, the trial
Holding statements: (A) holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional 3583e2 modification (B) holding that a hearing is required when a modification of parenting time would change the established custodial environment (C) holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody (D) holding that a custodial parents move to a foreign state without more is not a substantial change of circumstances that would support a modification of custody (E) holding that parties inability to agree on which private high school child would attend constituted substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of parenting plan
answer:
holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional 3583e2 modification

question:
U.S., $147,900.00, 450 Fed.Appx. 261, 264 (4th Cir.2011) (finding a link between the defendant property and drugs when the claimant had a history of being involved with illegal drugs, the currency seized was allegedly related to drug activities, the cash seized was a large sum, and the claimant had no reported income or work history); United States v. $58,422.00 in U.S. Currency, 154 Fed.Appx. 20, 21-22 (9th Cir.2005) (finding a substantial link when the defendant property (cash and jewelry) was in close proximity to drugs, the claimant's income was less than his monthly bills, and the claimant had no other source of income with which to have acquired the defendant property); United States v. $21,408.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 4:10-cv-138, 2010 WL 4687876, at *4 (S.D.Ga. Nov. 10, 2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. $36,100.00 in U.S. Currency,
Holding statements: (A) holding invalid and of no effect provisions in a judgment purporting to retain jurisdiction in the trial court for six months over the issues of the amount of child support and maintenance for the reason the respondent was currently unemployed (B) holding that a complaint met the pleading requirements when it alleged that 36110 was found packaged an unusual manner the money was hidden in a traptype compartment in a van and there was a positive drug dog alert (C) holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant (D) holding that the rule g pleading standard was met when the cash amount seized was large 185000 the claimant had been unemployed for six months the cash was packaged in an unusual fashion the claimant attempted to avoid a search and gave a false statement to police and a drug dog alerted positively (E) holding no probable cause where naddispositive claimant gave false and evasive answers purchased ticket with cash the day of flight and had no luggage or identification
answer:
holding invalid and of no effect provisions in a judgment purporting to retain jurisdiction in the trial court for six months over the issues of the amount of child support and maintenance for the reason the respondent was currently unemployed