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: claims); see also Stewart, 104 N.M. at 748, 726 P.2d at 1378 ("An insurance policy is a contract and is generally governed by the law of contracts, and the rights and duties of the parties are to be determined by its terms." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, we held that 8.75% was the proper interest to be assessed on the contract damages. {40} Like the trial court in Teague-Strebeck, the trial court in our case awarded damages based on the insurance contract $100,000 in UM coverage. See 1999-NMCA-109, 63-64, 127 N.M. 603, 985 P.2d 1183 (observing that the plaintiff "was awarded the benefit of its bargain, the extent of insurance coverage promised by [the defendant's agent]"); cf. Ellis v. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Cos., 1999-NMSC-034, 1, 128 N.M. 54, 989 P.2d 429 (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that 8.75% is the
Holding statements: (A) holding that sixyear contract statute of limitations did not apply reasoning that an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on breach of warranty is only nominally based on contract (B) holding that this courts sixyear statute of limitations is jurisdictional (C) holding that sixyear statute of limitations in 65314 is applicable to violations of 7202 (D) recognizing a sixyear statute of limitations on claims filed under the coal act (E) holding that the sixyear statute of limitations on a written contract is applicable to a cause of action based on a um policy

A: holding that sixyear contract statute of limitations did not apply reasoning that an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on breach of warranty is only nominally based on contract
****
Q: While Zadvydas does not explicitly mention bond, the opinion does cite to a regulation 8 C.F.R. 241.5 (promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to his power under 8 U.S.C. 1103) which does allow the conditioning of release upon the posting of bond. See 8 C.F.R. 241.5(b) ("An officer authorized to issue an order of supervision may require the posting of a bond in an amount determined by the officer to be sufficient to ensure compliance with the conditions of the order, including surrender for removal."). Given this language in Zadvydas, we hold that conditioning a post-removal-order immigrant's release upon the posting of a bond is permissible. The one circuit court to have considered this question reached the same conclusion. Doan v. INS, 311 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). C. A post-removal-order bond must be
Holding statements: (A) holding that even though a bond contained provisions not required by statute it must be considered statutory and not common law because the bond did not expand the payment provisions beyond those stated in statute (B) holding that the bond was intended to and did substantially comply with sjection 71323 therefore because its conditions were not broader and more protective than the statute required the contention that the bond was a common law bond failed (C) holding that taxable costs included only the premium on a surety bond posted on appeal not the fees paid for letters of credit to secure the bond where the state statute and court rule only specifically allowed for premium on any surety bond (D) holding that a bond is well within the kinds of conditions contemplated by the supreme court in zadvydas and noting that although the statute authorizing terms of supervision 8 usc 1231a3 and 6 does not expressly authorize a bond it does not exclude such a condition (E) recognizing that no bond or a nominal bond may be appropriate in cases involving the public interest

A: holding that even though a bond contained provisions not required by statute it must be considered statutory and not common law because the bond did not expand the payment provisions beyond those stated in statute
****
Q: are matters within the province of the trier of fact." Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 471 A.2d 1228, 1229-30 (1984). This same standard is used when evaluating an adjudication of delinquency. See In the Interest of A.D., 771 A.2d 45 (Pa.Super.2001). A minor is guilty of driving under the influence if he operates a motor vehicle while maintaining a blood alcohol content of .02% or greater. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. 3731(a)(4)(ii). 5 Here, the record reflects that Appellant drove past a posted stop sign without stopping. Thereafter, he failed two field sobriety tests and registered a blood alcohol level of .022%. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to adjudicate Appellant delinquent for driving under the influence. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 834 A.2d 1160, 1167 (Pa.Super.2003) (<HOLDING>). 6 Next, Appellant challenges the
Holding statements: (A) holding that a refusal to perform field sobriety tests was admissible as evidence of intoxication (B) holding evidence sufficient when appellant exhibited signs of possible intoxication failed field sobriety tests and had blood alcohol level in excess of legal limit (C) holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to give a voluntary intoxication charge because even though there was testimony that the appellant had consumed some alcohol prior to the killing there was no evidence that the appellant had been overwhelmed or overpowered by alcohol (D) holding that an erisa fiduciary did not act unreasonably when it denied benefits to an insured beneficiary after the insured died from driving with a blood alcohol level 50 higher than the legal limit (E) holding such intoxication to be voluntary

A:
holding that a refusal to perform field sobriety tests was admissible as evidence of intoxication
****