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]: (Tex.2010) (orig. proceeding). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies creates a jurisdictional bar to proceeding with the claim. See City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 154 (Tex.2008) ("[Njoncompliance [with Chapter 21's administrative procedures] deprives courts of subject-matter, jurisdiction."); Smith v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. of Dallas, 101 S.W.3d 185, 188 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). A would-be Chapter 21 claimant must first file an administrative complaint with the civil rights division of the Texas Workforce Commission. See Tex. Lab.Code Ann. 21.201(a) .(stating that an aggrieved person "may file a complaint with the commission"); id. 21.0015 (defining "commission" as "the Texas Workforce Commission civil rights division"); Schroeder, 813 S.W.2d at 486-88 (<HOLDING>). The complaint must be filed "not later than
Holding statements: (A) holding use of word may generally indicates permissive rather than mandatory intent (B) holding that a states use of the word shall is mandatory language (C) holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional (D) holding that administrative exhaustion is mandatory despite legislatures use of the word may (E) recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional
[A]: holding use of word may generally indicates permissive rather than mandatory intent

[Q]: the State argued that Wright and Jackson were the two shooters at the trials of Wright, Oglesby, and Jackson. The State denies that it presented mutually exclusive, false, or misleading evidence. It contends that the evidence permits two factual scenarios: the shooters were either Jackson and Wright or Jackson and defendant. This is not a case where the prosecutor destroyed the credibility of one witness to convict one defendant and then used that same witness to convict a co-defendant for the same crime. See, e.g., Drake v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1449 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020, 106 S.Ct. 3333, 92 L.Ed.2d 738 (1986). Nor is this a case where the prosecutor improperly argued facts that were unsupported by the evidence. Nichols v. Collins, 802 F.Supp. 66, 75 (S.D.Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>), habeas corpus denied, sub nom, Nichols v.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant may not state one ground at trial and another on appeal (B) holding that where trial court is trier of fact and has made an affirmative deadly weapon finding it retains discretion to enter finding in judgment (C) holding that although trial courts oral opinion may be used as a reference in the interpretation of its written findings of fact it is not a finding of fact (D) holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal (E) holding in case in which defendant challenged his murder conviction and death sentence on ground that states conflicting theories in the trial of his accomplice constituted a denial of due process that state may be constitutionally estopped from obtaining a fact finding in one trial and seeking and obtaining an inconsistent fact finding in another trial
[A]: holding that the defendant may not state one ground at trial and another on appeal

[Q]: (Rule 60(b) motion); Mehdipour v. Snowden, 162 F.3d 1173, 1998 WL 777397 (10th Cir. Nov.4, 1998) (unpublished op.) (motion to enjoin); Mehdipour v. City of Oklahoma City, 161 F.3d 18, 1998 WL 694527 (10th Cir. Oct.6, 1998) (unpublished op.) (Rule 60(b) motion); Mehdipour v. Oklahoma County Sheriff, 161 F.3d 18, 1998 WL 614448 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 1998) (unpublished op.) (28 U.S.C. 2254 petition); Mehdipour v. City of Oklahoma City, 145 F.3d 1346, 1998 WL 199648 (10th Cir. April 24, 1998) (unpublished op.) (Rules 59(e) and 60(b) motions); Mehdipour v. City of Oklahoma City, 131 F.3d 152, 1997 WL 748651 (10th Cir. Dec.3, 1997) (unpublished op.) (civil rights action). 2 . See, e.g., District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,
Holding statements: (A) holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts (B) holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this court (C) holding federal district courts do not have jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state courts action was unconstitutional review of those decisions may be had only in this united states supreme court (D) holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts (E) holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case
[A]:
holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts