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.
--------
Question: unpublished decisions, "[njoticeably absent from the list of factors Pruitt instructs district courts to consider are the merits and substance of the pro se plaintiffs claim." Rivera v. Kettle Moraine Correctional Inst., No. 14-C-6, 2014 WL 2875897, at *4 (E.D. Wis. June 24, 2014); Kennedy v. Huibregtse, No. 13-C-4, 2014 WL 4924662, at *15 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2014). On appeal from an adverse judgment in a case where the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion to recruit; the Court of Appeals will consider whether "there is a reasonable likelihood that the presence of counsel would have made a difference in the outcome of the litigation" in assessing whether the district court's abuse of its discretion was prejudicial. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 659 (italics original r. 2002) (<HOLDING>); Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir.
Holding statements: (A) holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation (B) holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (C) holding that prisoner must allege acts or omissions evidencing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (D) holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs (E) holding that plaintiffs claim must have arguable merit meaning that plaintiffs allegations clearly state a nonfrivolous prima facie case of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and that the already established evidence indicates more than an extremely slim chance of success on the merits

Answer: holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation

Question: 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

Answer: holding that once a sentence is imposed it is a valid final judgment until it is reversed or vacated

Question: absence of fault or negligence on the part of defendant; and (5) the absence of any adequate remedy at law. Hess cannot satisfy these requirements especially (3) and (4). There was no fraud alleged in this case, and this court has only awarded relief "on the ground of mistake ... where mutual mistake is shown and where the party seeking relief is without fault or negligence in the premises." Hess was also negligent in failing to pursue his remedies on direct appeal. V For the foregoing reasons, the district court's grant of the writ of habeas corpus is VACATED. Hess' motions to dismiss his counsel, appoint substitute counsel, appear pro se, and for an out-of-time appeal are all DENIED; and Appellant's motion to supplement the record is DENIED AS MOOT. 1 . 135 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 2 . 154 F.3d 196 (5th Cir.1998). 3 . Id. at
Holding statements: (A) holding that in general aedpa applies only to habeas petitions filed after the statutes effective date of april 24 1996 and noting that aedpas special procedures for 28 usc 2254 petitions in capital cases apply also to petitions pending on april 24 1996 (B) holding that prisoners had one year from the effective date of aedpa april 24 1996 to file their habeas petitions before they could be considered timebarred by the operation of 2244d1 (C) holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996 (D) holding that prisoners whose convictions became final on or before april 24 1996 must file their 2255 motions before april 24 1997 (E) holding that the aedpa applies to those habeas corpus petitions filed after its effective date of april 24 1996

Answer:
holding that in general aedpa applies only to habeas petitions filed after the statutes effective date of april 24 1996 and noting that aedpas special procedures for 28 usc 2254 petitions in capital cases apply also to petitions pending on april 24 1996