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 Input:
improperly removed the action as there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy fails to meet the $75,000 threshold. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of "compensatory, special and general damages in an amount according to proof at trial, but not less than $1,000,000." (Dkt. No., Ex. A.) Plaintiff further states that the amount of the Note on the property in question is $440,000 (Id.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. The question before the Court is whether, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Wells Fargo is also a citizen of California. See, e.g., Uriarte v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127497 at *9, 2011 WL 5295285 at *2-3 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 3, 2011) (<HOLDING>). But see Flores v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2012
Holding statements: (A) holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count (B) holding that the location of a corporations principal place of business for diversity purposes is the state where the corporation has its headquarters or nerve center (C) holding that if a domestic corporations principal place of business is abroad the foreign principal place of business cannot be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes (D) holding that wells fargo is also a citizen of california where it has its principal place of business (E) holding that for diversity purposes a national bank is a citizen of the state of its principal place of business and the state listed in its organizational certificate

Ex Output:
holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count

Ex Input:
reasonable presumption against waiver should be indulged. Commonwealth v. Hooks, 375 Mass. 284, 288 (1978). A defendant's illiteracy or low intelligence is not dispositive of his capacity to waive Miranda rights and render a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary confession. See Commonwealth v. Ostrander, 441 Mass. 344, 346, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 867 (2004); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 432 Mass. 82, 86-87 (2000) (concluding that the defendant, who had a learning disability and an IQ in the eighties, validly waived his rights in light of his "considerable prior experience with the police and in receiving Miranda warnings," as well as his "cunning" attempts to exculpate himself "after being confronted with the [ ] evidence against him"); Commonwealth v. Hartford, 425 Mass. 378, 380-81 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Dingle, 73 Mass.App.Ct. 274,
Holding statements: (A) holding that a 15yearold was of suitable intelligence and maturity to validly waive miranda rights specifically focusing on the fact that the juvenile had been advised of his rights on three prior occasions and had once asked for an attorney (B) recognizing that plaintiffs had standing to allege infringements of their first amendment rights where the record established that they had been threatened with enforcement of the statute and that such enforcement would cause them injury (C) holding that language difficulties may impair the ability of a person in custody to waive his miranda rights in a free and aware manner (D) holding admissible suspects statement to police after being informed that he had been identified in a lineup which the court assumed without deciding was interrogation for purposes of the appeal because the statements were voluntarily made without any coercion and came after the suspect was given and validly waived his miranda rights (E) holding that irrespective of the suspects limited reasoning ability and iq of 73 evidence that the suspect had held various parttime jobs had been living on his own possessed a drivers license and had prior experience with law enforcement was probative of competence to waive miranda rights

Ex Output:
holding that a 15yearold was of suitable intelligence and maturity to validly waive miranda rights specifically focusing on the fact that the juvenile had been advised of his rights on three prior occasions and had once asked for an attorney

Ex Input:
violates [a] mandatory regulation, there will be no shelter from liability because there is no room for choice and the action will be contrary to policy." United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 324, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991). For example, we have observed that the limitation of an officer's judgment during a high speed chase such as the limitation of "the speed of a vehicle in hot pursuit indicates that the [police department] already had made the decision to limit the officer's exercise of discretion." Biscoe v. Arlington Cty., 738 F.2d 1352, 1363 (D.C.Cir.1984). Consequently, "effective law enforcement would not be hindered by enforced adherence to such regulations" through civil liability. Id.; see also Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021, 1024 (7th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). We see no difference between a prescription
Holding statements: (A) holding that the discretionary function does not apply where the decisionmaker lacks authority (B) holding federal tort claims act discretionary function exception does not apply if prison personnel violate a mandatory regulation (C) recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver (D) holding that the government cannot waive or forfeit an argument that the discretionary function exception to the federal tort claims act ftca should apply (E) holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision

Ex Output:
holding that the discretionary function does not apply where the decisionmaker lacks authority