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:
$585,000 compensation for both the value of the condemned property and damage to the remainder. Northborough filed an objection to the commissioner's decision asserting it had not received just compensation. The State filed an objection claiming the award was excessive. On April 19, 1991, the award was deposited with the clerk of the trial court. Northborough filed a motion to withdraw the $585,000, which the trial court granted on May 2, 1991. The State subsequently took possession of the condemned property and commenced construction on I-45. Prior to the commencement of the jury trial, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether there was a material and substantial impairment of access to the remainder. See State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex.1988) (<HOLDING>). The trial court found the improvements to
Holding statements: (A) holding that when ruling on a motion under rule 60b1 the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact unless a request is made (B) holding that the trial court is required to provide reasons for its decision prior to appeal (C) holding the trial court is required to make a determination on impairment of access prior to trial (D) holding that trial courts limited findings were insufficient to allow determination of whether trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss his indictment on constitutional speedy trial grounds (E) holding that an exhaustion of appellate remedies is required to make a trial courts ruling the law of the case

Ex Output:
holding that when ruling on a motion under rule 60b1 the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact unless a request is made

Ex Input:
the instructions misstated the law or misled the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party." United States v. Felts, 579 F.3d 1341, 1342 (11th Cir. 2009). We will not reverse a conviction because of an erroneous instruction unless we are "left with a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations." Id. at 1342-43 (quotation marks omitted). We evaluate the instruction as a whole and in the context of the entire trial. United States v. Seabrooks, 839 F.3d 1326, 1333 (11th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Feb. 16, 2017) (No. 16-8072). Challenges to jury instructions that are raised for the first time on appeal, however, are reviewed for plain error only. United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944, 973
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review (B) holding that a defendant who fails to raise rule 11 error at trial has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule (C) holding that plainerror review applies where the defendant fails to object to a constructive amendment (D) holding that plainerror review applies when a defendant fails to make a specific rule 32i3b objection based on a district courts failure to resolve a factual dispute (E) holding that plain error review applies where the defendant fails to object to the lack of an opportunity to allocute

Ex Output:
holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review

Ex Input:
officer, through negligence, suffers a prisoner in his custody upon conviction of any criminal charge to escape, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The trial court dismissed the charges on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional. We affirm. In State v. Winters, 346 So.2d 991 (Fla.1977), our supreme court held a statute criminalizing the negligent treatment of children unconstitutional because it made purely negligent conduct a crime without a showing of willfulness or even culpable negligence. Eighteen years later this court held that amendments to the same statute did not cure the defect which was the basis of the supreme court's decision in Winters. State v. Mincey, 658 So.2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), (<HOLDING>). When the appellant challenged the
Holding statements: (A) holding that section 89313 as amended by section 893101 florida statutes 2002 is constitutional (B) holding that section 7750214b2 florida statutes 1993 prohibited conviction for fraud by person authorized to provide goods or services and grand theft based on the same facts (C) holding florida sexual predators act section 77521 florida statutes 2000 to be unconstitutional as violating procedural due process (D) holding section 82705 florida statutes 1993 unconstitutional and certifying the question as one of great public importance (E) holding defendant had requisite contacts under section 481932 florida statutes where it solicited consulting and other services from a florida corporation in which a substantial amount of the services sought by defendant were performed in florida

Ex Output:
holding that section 89313 as amended by section 893101 florida statutes 2002 is constitutional