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.

Input: Consider Input: other court's construal of the statute. See Thrivent, 251 S.W.3d at 622-23; J.D. Edwards World Solutions Co. v. Estes, Inc., 91 S.W.3d 836, 839-40 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied); Poole v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., No. 14-99-00740-CV, No, 14-99-01056-CV, 2000 WL 1721150, at *1, 2000 Tex.App. LEXIS 6825, at *3-*4 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 12, 2000, pet. denied) (not designated for publication); Vondergoltz, 14 S.W.3d at 331. Finally, this argument is contrary to the prevailing view among state courts outside of Texas as well, which have held that an order vacating an award and directing a rehearing (without denying confirmation) is not final and appealable. See City of Fort Lauderdale v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 31, 582 So.2d 162, 162-63 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); Carner v. Freedman, 175 So.2d 70, 71
Holding statements: (A) holding that the ordering of a rehearing caused the judgment to not be final and appealable (B) holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable (C) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (D) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable (E) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable

Output: holding that the ordering of a rehearing caused the judgment to not be final and appealable

Input: Consider Input: felt compelled, at the very least, to guess why the prosecutor behaved as he did. But the Batson framework was designed to avoid such "needless and imperfect speculation," by asking prosecutors to perform the "simple" task of placing race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes on the record. Johnson, 545 U.S. at 172, 125 S.Ct. 2410. As a result, this Court must conclude that the Appellate Division applied Batson and its progeny in an unreasonable manner. The Court appreciates the gravity of this holding, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's admonition that AEDPA creates a "highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings." Cullen, 563 U.S. at 181, 131 S.Ct. 1388. Even in the Batson context, however, AEDPA deference has its limits. See, e.g., Jones, 555 F.3d at 101 (<HOLDING>). Enforcing those limits is the only way to
Holding statements: (A) holding that new york courts unreasonably applied batson (B) holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york (C) holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership (D) holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action (E) holding that new york law applies to this matter

Output: holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york

Input: Consider Input: mere showing that there is a discriminatory effect to a particular action or policy is not sufficient to establish an equal protection violation. Washington, 426 U.S. at 242, 96 S.Ct. at 2049; see Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265-66, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563-64, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Williams v. Anderson, 562 F.2d 1081, 1087 (8th Cir.1977); see also Minority Police Officers Ass'n v. City of South Bend, 617 F.Supp. 1330, 1348 (N.D.Ind.1985), aff'd, 801 F.2d 964 (7th Cir.1986) (noting in equal protection challenge to promotion policy in police department that official action will generally not be held unconstitutional solely because which it results in racially disproportionate impact); Betts v. McCaughtry, 827 F.Supp. 1400, 1404 (W.D.Wis.1993) (<HOLDING>). Whether discriminatory purpose was a
Holding statements: (A) holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments (B) holding that district court erred in dismissing inmates complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when court did not address inmates allegation that prison officials failed to provide necessary grievance forms (C) holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury (D) holding that the fact that nearly all music cassettes censored by prison authorities was afrieanamerican rap music failed to demonstrate that the purpose of the ban was to discriminate against africanamerican inmates (E) holding that music and loud talking broadcast over prison intercom throughout 24hour period did not offend contemporary standards of deeency
Output: holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments