instruction:
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.
question:
take place in federal court. The Government maintains that a facially valid certification is not subject to review by this Court and must be held sufficient. It further contends that even if the certification can be reviewed by this Court, the certification at issue here was correct. "Whether the government complied with [the juvenile delinquency certification requirements of] 18 U.S.C. 5032 is an issue of statutory interpretation which this court reviews de novo." United States v. Juvenile Male, 241 F.3d 684, 686 (9th Cir.2001). A certification filed in the district court by a United States Attorney is presumed to be accurate, absent circumstances calling into question its accuracy or validity. See Pasadena Research Labs., Inc. v. United States, 169 F.2d 375, 381-82 (9th Cir.1948) (<HOLDING>). A Section 5032 provides in relevant part: A
Holding statements: (A) holding generally the law presumes that every man in his private and official character does his duty until the contrary is proved it will presume that all things are rightly done unless the circumstances of the case overturn this presumption (B) holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence (C) holding that where a public official takes discretionary action that the official knows will directly benefit a financial interest that the official has concealed in violation of a state criminal law that official has deprived the public of his honest services under 1346 (D) recognizing a presumption of regularity that undergirds the official acts of public officers causing courts to presume that they have properly discharged their official duties (E) holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation
answer:
holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence

question:
method (under 3663) in favor of an incorrect method (under 1593), the district court erred. Moreover, we hold that the district court's error was "plain," because the statutes are clear and because the government openly admitted that its proposed methodology derived from the wrong restitution statute. See United States v. Tuyet Thi-Bach Nguyen, 565 F.3d 668, 677 (9th Cir.2009) ("An error is plain when it is 'clear' or 'obvious' under the law."). Finally, we hold that the error affected Defendants' substantial rights and affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. The government did not present evidence and the district court did not make findings of the victims' actual losses, as required by 3663. See Bussell, 504 F.3d at 964 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Joyner, 201 F.3d 61, 81 (2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that restitution is proper under 2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses (B) holding that restitution is proper for victims losses that are directly caused by appellants conduct for which he was convicted (C) holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc 3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction (D) holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses (E) holding that restitution in the full amount of each victims losses does not exceed the statutory maximum
answer:
holding that restitution is proper under 2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses

question:
substantially less than that amount. Having reviewed Zee Medical's complaint, we are satisfied that federal jurisdiction is proper. Given the extensive claims made by Zee Medical in its complaint and the remedies available under those claims, it cannot be said with legal certainty that Zee Medical would recover less than $75,000 if it prevails in this matter. See Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Society v. Manganaro, 342 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir.2003). B. Denial of Preliminary Injunction Ordinarily, this court reviews the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir.2003). Zee Medical, however, argues that the district court applied the wrong standard when it ruled on the motion. See id. at 1188-89 (<HOLDING>). Even if we assume for purposes of this appeal
Holding statements: (A) holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted (B) holding that under the sliding scale approach a petitioner had made a sufficiently strong showing of likely success on the merits where he presented a case which raises serious legal questions or has a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success (C) holding the interests of justice require that in a doubtful case any error if there is to be one should be committed in favor of allowing a class action citations omitted (D) holding that when the three harm factors tip decidedly in the movants favor the probability of success requirement is somewhat relaxed and the movant need only show questions going to the merits so serious substantial difficult and doubtful as to make them a fair ground for litigation citations and quotations omitted (E) holding that a court may issue injunctive relief only when the movant demonstrates four factors substantial likelihood of success on the merits irreparable harm no substantial injury to the other party and furtherance of the public interest
answer:
holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted