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 Q]: WTT Project area as defined by the Corps. NEF contends that we need not consider the State's argument because the State failed to raise this argument in its initial motion to clarify, instead raising it for the first time in its Rule 59(e) motion. "Rule 59(e) motions are 'aimed at reconsideration, not initial consideration.' " FDIC v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992) (quoting Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Bank of New England, 897 F.2d 611, 616 (1st Cir.1990)). In World University, this Court held that the defendant's argument, which it raised for the first time in a Rule 59(e) motion, was barred where there was no reason why the defendant could not have presented its argument prior to its motion to alter or amend the judgment. Id.; see also Engler, 146 F.3d at 374 (<HOLDING>). This rule, however, does not cover the facts
Holding statements: (A) holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument (B) holding that a party in a habeas case waives an argument by failing to raise it before the district court (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 an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion (E) holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court
[EX A]: holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument

[EX Q]: is clear." Investment Company Institute, 891 F.Supp.2d at 205. The appellants also assert that the agency improperly counted hypothetical benefits, but this assertion is incorrect. It was appropriate for CFTC to count the benefits flowing from its registration and disclosure requirements in 4.5 and 4.27, as the specifics of those requirements are finalized and not subject to the harmonization rule. The appellants further complain that CFTC failed to put a precise number on the benefit of data collection in preventing future financial crises. But the law does not require agencies to measure the immeasurable. CFTC's discussion of unquantifiable benefits fulfills its statutory obligation to consider and evaluate potential costs and benefits. See Fox, 556 U.S. at 519, 129 S.Ct. 1800 (<HOLDING>). Where Congress has required "rigorous,
Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies (B) holding that new york city agencies cannot be sued (C) holding that agencies are not required to adduce empirical data that cannot be obtained (D) holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment (E) recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence
[EX A]: holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies

[EX Q]: disciplinary warning he had issued to Mr. Avila, and he told a group of workers that Mr. Avila should get out of the country if he couldn't speak English right about the time he fired Mr. Avila. Thus, the record contradicts the district court's finding that Mr. Keeffe made only one isolated remark about Mr. Avila's language, which was months before, and unrelated to, the termination decision. We conclude these remarks are circumstantial evidence of discriminatory animus, and, given that two of the comments were made contemporaneous with Mr. Keeffe's warning and termination decisions, a reasonable jury could conclude these remarks were related to those warning and termination decisions. Cf. Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454, 456, 126 S.Ct. 1195, 163 L.Ed.2d 1053 (2006) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Hong v. Children's Mem'l Hosp., 993 F.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that an individual can be a final policymaker either by operation of state and local positive law or by custom or usage having the force of law (B) holding that use of potentially derogatory term may be evidence of racial animus which could potentially show pretext depending on various factors including context inflection tone of voice local custom and historical usage (C) holding that evidence of pretext may include the use of subjective criteria (D) holding that the employers routine use of racial slurs constitutes direct evidence that racial animus was a motivating factor in the contested disciplinary decisions (E) holding that a supervisors routine use of racial slurs constitutes direct evidence that racial animus was a motivating factor in the contested disciplinary decisions
[EX A]:
holding that an individual can be a final policymaker either by operation of state and local positive law or by custom or usage having the force of law