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.

[Q]: appealed the judgment of the Court of Veterans Appeals to this court. On appeal the Secretary contends that the Court of Veterans Appeals erred by not deferring to the Department's reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions governing claims for accrued benefits. The Secretary also disputes Mrs. Jones's assertion that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. ANALYSIS I. Jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of the Court of Veterans Appeals is conferred upon this court by 38 U.S.C. 7292 (1994). Under the express terms of that statute, however, we "may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case." 38 U 625, 110 S.Ct. 2658, 2663-64, 110 L.Ed.2d 563 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to hear
Holding statements: (A) holding that a district courts remand order effectively invalidating certain regulations of the secretary of health and human services was an immediately appealable order (B) holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable (C) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (D) holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (E) holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order
[A]: holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable

[Q]: the evidence of rape discussed above in Division 1, we conclude that the evidence at Martin's trial was sufficient to support the statutory aggravating circumstances found as to both murders. See OCGA 17-10-35 (c) (2) (requiring a review of the statutory aggravating circumstances foundby the jury);UAP Rule IV (B) (2) (providing that, in all death penalty cases, this Court will determine whether the verdicts are supported by the evidence). See also Ring, 536 U. S. 584; Jackson, 443 U. S. 307. 20. Considering both the murders for which Martin has been sentenced to death and Martin as a defendant, we find that the death sentences imposed in his case were not disproportionate punishment within the meaning of Georgia law. See OCGA 17-10-35 (c) (3); Gissendaner, 272 Ga. at 716-717 (<HOLDING>). The cases cited in the Appendix support this
Holding statements: (A) holding that this courts statutorily mandated proportionality review concerns whether a particular death sentence is excessive per se or is substantially out of line (B) holding that the failure to hold a faretta hearing is per se reversible error and reversing the defendants conviction vacating his death sentence and remanding for a new trial (C) holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment (D) holding such agreements to be per se illegal (E) holding that denial of access per se is noncompensable
[A]: holding that the failure to hold a faretta hearing is per se reversible error and reversing the defendants conviction vacating his death sentence and remanding for a new trial

[Q]: citations and quotations omitted). Thus, the Court does not view evidence of racial discrimination in hiring practices at Budco as irrelevant to Wilson's claim that he was discriminated against by being transferred back to DCXOM and by not being hired for a job ultimately given to Page. 5. Many of the black temps within the company quit because they were discouraged with Budco's hiring practices. Defendants assert that the Court should strike paragraph 5 for lack of personal knowledge. In his supplemental affidavit, Wilson explained that he knew this information because he was told by the employees why they were quitting. Wilson lacks personal knowledge of information that he received from these employees. See Sperle v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 297 F.3d 483, 495-96 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Weberg v. Franks, 229 F.3d 514, 526 n. 13
Holding statements: (A) holding that fourth amendment did not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to government authorities (B) holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant (C) holding that statements even when made to a third party which are appropriately determined to be threatening can constitute obstruction of justice (D) holding exculpatory statements by a third party should have been admitted in the punishment phase notwithstanding the hearsay rule (E) holding that plaintiffaffiant did not have personal knowledge of statements made to him by a third party
[A]:
holding that fourth amendment did not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to government authorities