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 Input:
as Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Holland had been given the authority to review the allegations against Vickers and make the ultimate decision to keep her or fire her. Without more than what Vickers has offered as evidence, we cannot- see how a reasonable jury might find a retaliatory motive at work in Holland's decision. Vickers' retaliation claim is further undermined by the fact that even though it was Holland who fired her, Bedwell was the focus of her discrimination claims. Vickers failed to put on any evidence to show that Holland's decision was in any way influenced by Bedwell, who had retired before Vickers' refusal to sign the releases in April 2001 that triggered her firing. See, e.g., Griffin v. Wash. Convention Ctr., 142 F.3d 1308, 1311-12 (D.C.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Nor can Vickers' Title VII claims draw
Holding statements: (A) holding that a common employer and administrator does not necessarily influence the administrators decision (B) holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision (C) holding that subordinates bias is only relevant where the ultimate decision maker is not insulated from the subordinates influence (D) holding that it is the conduct required to obtain a conviction rather than the consequences resulting from the crime that is relevant (E) holding that the relevant question is whether the courts decision deprived the petitioner of his right to place before the sentencer relevant evidence in mitigation of punishment

Ex Output:
holding that a common employer and administrator does not necessarily influence the administrators decision

Ex Input:
his first issue, Samba maintains that the immigration judge placed too little weight on the length of his sentence and the assistance he provided to federal agencies in determining that the offense was a particularly serious crime. We have previously determined that such a claim, "which amount[s] to an argument that the immigration judge 'abused [his] discretion in weighing the multiple desiderata made relevant by the [BIA's] definition of a particularly serious crime,' do[es] not present questions of law and therefore [is] not reviewable under section 1252(a)(2)(D)." Solorzano-Moreno v. Mukasey, 296 Fed.Appx. 391, 394 (5th Cir.2008) (third alteration in original) (quoting Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800, 802 (7th Cir.2006)); see also Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). To the extent that the first issue challenges
Holding statements: (A) holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a (B) holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (D) holding that the argument that the immigration judge did not consider all of the relevant factors in determining that his children would not suffer the requisite hardship was not a question of law under 1252a2d (E) holding that the family court is required to consider all relevant factors in determining alimony

Ex Output:
holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a

Ex Input:
included offense. Based on the foregoing, it is arguable the directed verdict issue is not preserved as defense counsel did not specifically renew his directed verdict motion at the conclusion of the evidence. Rather, he made only a general reference to renewing his "previous objections," a statement he made earlier which did not include his directed verdict motion. See State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 377 S.E.2d 581 (1989) (finding defense counsel's statement at the end of all the evidence that he was making the "standard motions" did not preserve the issue of directed verdict for appeal); State v. Taylor, 333 S.C. 159, 508 S.E.2d 870 (1998) (noting a general or nonspecific objection presents no issue for appellate review); see also State v. Parler, 217 S.C. 24, 59 S.E.2d 489 (1950) (<HOLDING>); Note to Rule 19, SCRCrimP (stating the rule
Holding statements: (A) holding under former circuit court rule 76 the denial of the defendants directed verdict motion was not preserved for appeal where he failed to renew the motion after presenting evidence (B) holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified (C) holding in an appeal from the denial of a rule 32 petition that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in not ruling on his motion to subpoena a transcript of his guilty plea proceedings was not preserved for review because the circuit court never ruled on the motion and the appellant never objected to the circuit courts failure to rule on the motion (D) holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict (E) holding defendants failure to file motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict did not prevent district court from granting motion for directed verdict for which court reserved decision

Ex Output:
holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified