You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

Whether to allow the use of transcripts to aid in the presentation of tape-recorded evidence is within the district court's sound discretion. United States v. Collazo, 732 F.2d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir.1984). Here, the transcript was properly authenticated, and the district court appropriately instructed the jury that the transcript was not evidence, that the list of speakers in the transcript was not proof as to the identity of the speakers, and that any inconsistencies between the transcript and the recording should be resolved in favor of the recording. As such, we find no abuse of discretion. Id. (noting that cautionary instructions "cured any prejudice that might have resulted from discrepancies between tape and transcript"); United States v. Clark, 986 F.2d 65, 69 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Next, we have recently held that prior
Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a transcript of a recording even though defense counsel did not stipulate to its accuracy (B) holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence (C) holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes (D) holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony (E) holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in its admitting extraneous evidence to rebut a defensive theory
Output:
holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence