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: was pending on, AEDPA's effective date. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997); United States v. Skandier, 125 F.3d 178 (3d Cir.1997). "Because the District Court relied entirely upon the state court record and did not hold an evidentiary hearing, our review [of the District Court's decision] is plenary." Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941, 947 (3d Cir.1998) (citing Johnson v. Rosemeyer, 117 F.3d 104, 109 (3d Cir.1997)). Like the District Court, we must presume all state court factual findings to be correct, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d), but we "exercise plenary review over state court conclusions on mixed questions of law and fact and pure issues of law." Hassine, 160 F.3d at 947; see Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 105, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985)(<HOLDING>); Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. 591, 597, 102 S.Ct.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review (B) holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction (C) holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction (D) holding that petitions for confirmation or vacatur must show how the ultimate disposition of the matter by the federal court necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law (E) holding that while subsidiary factual questions are subject to 2254ds presumption the ultimate legal question of confessions constitutional voluntariness is a matter for independent federal determination

Output: holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review

Input: Consider Input: to commit himself to such an alternative to a federal sentence. 2 . Defendant also raises two additional arguments: (1) that the district court improperly based its sentence on the defendant's refusal to waive his constitutional and statutory rights to oppose his deportation; and (2) that the district court failed to appreciate the scope of its authority to consider, as a mitigating circumstance upon which to base a departure, defendant's vulnerability and susceptibility to abuse in prison due to his physical condition. Both arguments lack merit. As to the first argument, the conditioning of a downward departure on the surrender of a statutory right to a deportation hearing would not have offended due process. See United States v. Galvez-Falconi, 174 F.3d 255, 260 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). See generally United States v.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart (B) holding that district court had authority to grant section 5k20 downward departure despite governments opposition (C) holding that the district court was not required to state affirmatively on the record that it knew it possessed the authority to depart downward (D) holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart (E) holding that where a defendant malees a showing that the act of consenting to deportation carries unusual assistance to the administration of justice district court has authority under ussg 5k20 to depart downward in absence of the governments consent

Output: recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart

Input: Consider Input: need not be witnessed. See Dove v. Dove, 285 Ga. 647 (680 SE2d 839) (2009). However, such contracts were long deemed invalid as contrary to our State's public policy favoring marriage, and while they are now enforceable under some circumstances, they must meet other requirements. See id. at 650-651; Scherer v. Scherer, 249 Ga. 635, 641 (2 al agreements settling property rights of the parties at death are made in contemplation of marriage"). On the other hand, contracts that provide for alimony payments in the event of divorce, or that direct how property should be distributed if the parties divorce, are considered to be made in contemplation of divorce rather than marriage alone and thus are not subject to OCGA 19-3-63's attestation requirement. See Lawrence, 286 Ga. at 311-312 (<HOLDING>); Dove, 285 Ga. at 37 ("This Court has
Holding statements: (A) holding that an agreement that defined the parties respective rights in the property of the other and waived each spouses right in the others property either before or after death was a marriage contract (B) holding that an agreement which both addressed alimony and divided the parties property in the event of divorce was not a marriage contract subject to ocga 19363 (C) holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract (D) holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred (E) holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties
Output: holding that an agreement that defined the parties respective rights in the property of the other and waived each spouses right in the others property either before or after death was a marriage contract