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: California state prisoner, Roy Lee Brown, Jr., appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253. We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we vacate and remand. Brown contends that his 2254 petition was timely filed because his state habeas petitions statutorilly tolled the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) one-year statute of limitations. We agree. Brown is entitled to tolling during the time he was seeking one full round of collateral review by the California courts. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(d); Delhomme v. Ramirez, No. 00-56148, 2003 WL 21947183, at *3 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2003) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 220, 122
Holding statements: (A) holding that second and third state habeas petitions that were dismissed as impermissible successive petitions were properly filed (B) holding that it would be inappropriate to predict whether state law would foreclose state postconviction review of the petitioners habeas claim where the state permitted second or successive state petitions when the procedural bar would result in fundamental injustice (C) recognizing that a habeas petitioner may be entitled to tolling during a second round of petitions but holding that the statute is not tolled between rounds (D) holding that overlapping state habeas petitions begin a separate round of review and do not disturb the pendency of petitioners first round of review (E) holding that overlapping petitions do not affect tolling during the time petitioner is seeking one full round of review

Answer: holding that second and third state habeas petitions that were dismissed as impermissible successive petitions were properly filed

Question: to overcome this presumption by persuading the finder of fact, by a prepon derance of the evidence, that the income tax assessments are erroneous. See Sullivan v. United States, 618 F.2d 1001, 1008 (3d Cir.1980). Klimek has failed to offer any evidence that the tax assessments are incorrect in the amount the Government claims. He has never challenged in the Tax Court the Notices of Deficiency or the Certificates of Assessments and Payments for tax years 1980 through 1988 and 1990 through 1992. Nor has Klimek ever rebutted or even responded to the Government's requests for admissions regarding tax years 1980 through 1988 and 1990 through 1992, except to return them with the words "Refused for Fraud" scrawled across them. See Lane v. United States, 328 F.2d 602, 603 (5th Cir.1964) (<HOLDING>). Given the fact that Klimek bears the burden
Holding statements: (A) holding that a trial court may enter summary judgment for a nonmoving party under appropriate circumstances (B) holding that a trial court is not required to convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment where external evidence is submitted if the external evidence is irrelevant to the issue (C) holding that if no countervailing evidence is introduced the trial court is justified in fact required to enter summary judgment for the government the amount of the taxes proved to be due (D) holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence (E) holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion

Answer: holding that a trial court may enter summary judgment for a nonmoving party under appropriate circumstances

Question: award plaintiff more than $18,513 and that it was to subtract from that amount any income actually earned by plaintiff after he left defendant. Defendant's position at trial was that it fired plaintiff for just cause, i.e., his continual inability to get along with his coworkers. The jury was presented with a jury verdict form that permitted it to award the verdict to defendant and, instead, it rendered a verdict for plaintiff and awarded damages. Our examination of the evidence and the parties' positions at trial in light of the jury's verdict persuades us that it is more likely than not that the court's instruction created an erroneous impression of the law in the minds of the jury that affected its award. ORS 19.125(2). See also Baker v. English, 324 Or 585, 590, 932 P2d 57 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Reversed and remanded. 1 Three of those
Holding statements: (A) recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings (B) holding that the affecting substantial rights language of rule 52b means that the error must have been prejudicial it must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings (C) holding that the outcome of the case could have been different if the trial court had imposed the appropriate burden (D) holding that a petitioner must show that the outcome of his appeal would have been different had counsel raised the issue (E) holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred

Answer:
recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings