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]: in the petition no later than thirty days from the day on which the first defendant was served. Id. at 1262-63 (internal citations omitted). As a general premise, under the "first-served rule," defendants who are properly served within thirty days of the first defendant's service must join in the removal petition. The "failure to do so renders the petition defective." Id. at 1262. Under the facts of Getty, however, the application of the first-served rule did not produce an inequitable result. Nonetheless, recognizing the potential for harsh results, other decisions provide that exceptional circumstances may sometimes require relief from strict application of the rule in order to achieve equitable results. See Milstead Supply Co. v. Cas. Ins. Co., 797 F.Supp. 569, 573 (W.D.Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 482 (5th
Holding statements: (A) holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties (B) holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective (C) holding that dismissal of some but not all of the defendants who had been served with complaint is not a final order (D) holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served (E) holding that the defendants consent to search was voluntary although he had been served with a subpoena
[A]: holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties

[Q]: trial, arguing the court improperly excluded its sole expert witness, Bolt, from testifying at trial. The court denied the motion, stating that it did not completely exclude Bolt from testifying at trial, "but rather determ limine serve as the basis for the rule that "error claimed in a court's ruling on a motion in limine is waived unless a timely objection is made when the evidence is offered at trial." State v. Alberts, 722 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State v. Tangie, 616 N.W.2d 564, 568 (Iowa 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Simkins v. City of Davenport, 232 N.W.2d 561, 565 (Iowa 1975). This is because the error only occurs, if at all, when the evidence is offered at trial and is either admitted or refused. State v. Langley, 265 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Iowa 1978) (<HOLDING>). There is, however, an exception to this
Holding statements: (A) holding that once a sentence is imposed it is a valid final judgment until it is reversed or vacated (B) holding that it is not (C) holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 (D) recognizing further normally the ruling is not a final one it is a red flag to counsel that the evidence is not to be brought before the jury unless and until it is separately taken up with the court at trial (E) holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence
[A]: holding that once a sentence is imposed it is a valid final judgment until it is reversed or vacated

[Q]: to pay the full amount would cause an economic hardship or would be unfair and inequitable. A taxpayer files an offer-in-compromise by completing a Form 656, Offer in Compromise. In most cases, the taxpayer is of a more narrowly tailored statute does not necessarily prevent prosecution under a broader statute, so long as the defendant is not punished under both statutes for the same conduct."); Hale, 1992 WL 163600, at *3 (same). 9 . See United States v. Beacon Brass Co., 344 U.S. 43, 46, 73 S.Ct. 77, 97 L.Ed. 61 (1952) ("By providing that the sanction of s 145(b) should be 'in addition to other penalties provided by law,' Congress recognized that some methods of attempting to evade taxes would violate other statutes as well."). 10 . See Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d at 1187 (<HOLDING>). 11 . It is worth noting that while no other
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc 287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc 1341 1343 (B) holding that in a criminal mail fraud prosecution under 18 usc 1341 where proof of specific intent is required it may be found from a material misstatement of fact made with reckless disregard for truth (C) holding that submitting false claims to the government could be charged under either the false claims act 18 usc 287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc 1341 1343 because nothing in the statutory language of the relevant statutory provisions provided any evidence of an intent to withdraw from one statute a coverage it obviously has standing alone because of a coverage also afforded by another statute (D) holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments (E) holding that the defendant contractor violated 18 usc 286 a companion statute to the criminal fca because his claims were false when submitted even though the false claims were ultimately irrelevant to the total amount paid by the government to the contractor
[A]:
holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc 287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc 1341 1343