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.

[EX Q]: of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and part of the "unified judicial system," is an arm of the state. See Callahan v. City of Philadelphia, 207 F.3d 668, 672 (3d Cir.2000) ("All courts and agencies of the unified judicial system ... are part of 'Commonwealth government' and thus are state rather than local agencies."). As a state agency, the Board has Eleventh Amendment immunity. See id. Therefore, as an arm of the state, Lucas may not sue the Board unless one of the three exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity apply. See MCI Telcomm. Corp., 271 F.3d at 503 (listing immunity exceptions). On appeal, Lucas argues that the Ex Parte Young exception precludes the bar of the Eleventh Amendment to the present action against the Board. Howe 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Neither of these exceptions are applicable in
Holding statements: (A) holding that the medicaid act does not provide the type of detailed remedial scheme that would supplant an ex parte young action (B) holding that the cwa does not include a remedial scheme sufficient to preclude an ex parte young action (C) holding that a remedial scheme created by congress even if incapable of addressing all of plaintiffs injuries precluded a bivens action (D) holding that existence of a detailed remedial scheme shows congressional intent to prohibit recourse to the ex parte young fiction (E) holding that young will not apply where congress has created a detailed remedial scheme for the enforcement of a federal statutory right against a state
[EX A]: holding that the medicaid act does not provide the type of detailed remedial scheme that would supplant an ex parte young action

[EX Q]: to intervene" as a linguistic tool to highlight how little personal participation the defendant had in the arrest in that particular case. The passage shows how far below the required minimum level of involvement that particular defendant exhibited. Read in whole, Brown more accurately shows that personal participation in an arrest, or supervisory control over the arresting officer, is required in order to establish liability for unlawful arrest mere presence is not enough. However, even assuming Plaintiffs are correct, and that law enforcement officers have a duty to intervene in other officer's unlawful arrests, it cannot be said that the Canine Handlers or Alma Officers violated clearly established law in this case. See, e.g., Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1286 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The Canine Handlers and Alma Officers were
Holding statements: (A) holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim (B) holding that an officer could be held liable for failing to intervene in preventing an unlawful strip search (C) holding that a military police officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force suit when he objectively reasonably believed that he used reasonable force (D) holding that while case law generally indicates that an officer can be held liable for failing to intervene in another officers use of excessive force the absence of authority from the supreme court or the eleventh circuit dealing with similar circumstances supported granting qualified immunity to a defendant (E) holding that a police officer was not liable for use of excessive force since 951 requirements were satisfied
[EX A]: holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim

[EX Q]: sentence for a crime, the Supreme Court noted that a defendant may consider gain time or parole eligibility in deciding whether to enter a plea bargain. See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 32, 101 S.Ct. at 966 (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Warden, 417 U.S. at 658, 94 S.Ct. at 2535-36). An alien defendant, in addition to considering factors such as parole eligibility, would likely consider his or her eligibility to apply for a deportation waiver as well in deciding whether to plead or contest the charges. Just as the Supreme Court has found that "only an unusual prisoner could be expected to think that he was not suffering a penally when he was denied eligibility for parole," Warden, 417 U.S. at 662, 94 S.Ct. at 2538, only an unus 952) (<HOLDING>); Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32, 39, 44 S.Ct. 283,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the ex post facto clause did not apply because the civil contempt citation was not punitive (B) holding that the ex post facto clause does not apply to deportation orders because deportation however severe its consequences has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure (C) holding that because of its civil nature section 881 is not subject to the ex post facto clause (D) holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause (E) holding that the ex post facto clause has no application to deportation
[EX A]:
holding that the ex post facto clause did not apply because the civil contempt citation was not punitive