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]: that may be considered in determining punishment are the subject of article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex.Code CRIM. PROC. Ann. Art. 37.07 (Vernon Supp.2004). This statute authorizes the admission of evidence in the punishment phase of trial as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing. Id. The circumstances of the offense are relevant to sentencing and may be considered by the trier of fact in determining the punishment to be assessed. Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 44, 63 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). One circumstance of the offense that may be considered is the degree of injury to the victim so long as the fact finder may rationally attribute moral culpability to the accused for that injury. Stavinoha v. State, 808 S.W.2d 76, 78-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); Miller-El v. State, 782 S.W.2d 892, 896
Holding statements: (A) holding that sexual assault coercion and harassment certainly may violate contemporary standards of decency and cause physical and psychological harm (B) holding in aggravated sexual assault case that testimony regarding psychological trauma suffered by child victim and its physical manifestations properly admitted (C) holding that psychological conditions resulting from workrelated trauma are compensable (D) recognizing trauma that new trial would likely bring to victim of child sexual assault (E) recognizing the purpose of missouris child victim witness protection law sec 491675 et seq as an attempt to minimize the emotional and psychological trauma to the alleged child victim
[EX A]: holding that sexual assault coercion and harassment certainly may violate contemporary standards of decency and cause physical and psychological harm

[EX Q]: the defendant's applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment)." Id., app. note 1(A). In November 2007, the Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 706, which reduced the base offense level for crack cocaine offenses under 2Dl.l(c) by two levels. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 706 (Nov. 1, 2007). The Commission later made the amendment retroactively applicable. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 713 (Supp. May 1, 2008). As indicated, Jefferson sought to have his sentence reduced as result of those amendments. However, they do not apply here because Jefferson was sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence required by statute. See United States v. Doe, 564 F.3d 305, 311-12 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Because the District Court did not abuse its
Holding statements: (A) holding that the operative provision in determining the defendants applicable sentencing range is the statutory minimum not the crack cocaine guideline and that the defendants were still subject to the mandatory minimum upon which their substantial assistance departures and thus them ultimate sentences were based (B) holding that a defendant whose original sentence was based upon the careeroffender guideline and not 2d11 could not receive a sentence reduction based on amendment 706 because it did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range (C) holding that while amendment 706 was applicable to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline (D) holding that amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range where the defendants received statutory mandatory minimum sentences and thus the defendants were not eligible for relief under 3582 (E) holding that while amendment 706 was applica ble to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline
[EX A]: holding that the operative provision in determining the defendants applicable sentencing range is the statutory minimum not the crack cocaine guideline and that the defendants were still subject to the mandatory minimum upon which their substantial assistance departures and thus them ultimate sentences were based

[EX Q]: court, Ghosh's submissions suggest that he was, understandably, confused by the dual processing of his case by both agencies, and believed that he would have to wait for the SDHR's administrative process to conclude prior to filing his suit. Were Ghosh represented by counsel, such reasoning perhaps would not be tenable. However, as a pro se plaintiff attempting to navigate a confusing administrative structure, made more confusing by SDHR's duplicative investigation begun just two weeks after Ghosh was sent the EEOC's final determination in the case, Ghosh is not unjustified in reaching the conclusion that he was obligated to wait to file suit until the close of the administrative proceedings. Cf. Shumway v. Hendricks, No. 93-CV-485, 1994 WL 672656, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 1994) (<HOLDING>). The case file indicates that Ghosh has been
Holding statements: (A) recognizing same principle (B) recognizing the established principle that the alj is not required to take the claimants assertions of pain at face value (C) recognizing principle (D) holding premature a suit filed before final administrative determination of claimants administrative claim (E) recognizing the principle that an administrative agency error should not work to a claimants detriment
[EX A]:
recognizing same principle