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:
This Court has reviewed these decisions and is in agreement with their reasoning and conclusions that the public policy exception does not give rise to a protected property interest in continued employment in this case. Likewise, the implied covenant is not the source of a protected property interest. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies to at-will employment and affords an employee the right to be dealt with fairly and in good faith. See Cantwell v. City of Boise, 146 Idaho 127, 191 P.3d 205, 213-14 (2008). Breach of the covenant may give rise to an action for wrongful termination but it does not convert at-will employment to term employment nor form the basis for a protected property interest. See Hollister v. Forsythe, 22 F.3d 950, 952-52 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Willnerd v. Sybase, Inc., No.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by all parties in the performance of a contract for the sale of real estate (B) recognizing cause of action for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in atwill employment contract (C) holding an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was insufficient to create a property interest in continued employment under montanas statutory scheme for at will employment (D) holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract (E) recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages

Ex Output:
recognizing an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by all parties in the performance of a contract for the sale of real estate

Ex Input:
this suit ... was a necessary incident to the attorney's effort to establish [the defendants' claim]." Id. Unlike Bosurgi, however, the plaintiffs allegations provide no "basis for an inference" that CARCO conferred authority on Steele to receive service. Cf. Santos v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 902 F.2d 1092,1094 (2d Cir.1990) (noting that service on defendant State Farm's attorneys was improper where the plaintiff offered "no basis for an inference that State Farm had authorized its attorneys to accept service of process"). Accordingly, the court determines that the plaintiff has not shown that Steel was an agent of CARCO for service and that the plaintiffs service on CARCO was therefore deficient. United States v. Ziegler Bolt and Parts Co., Ill F.3d 878, 881 (Fed.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); J. and L. Parking Corp. Inc. v. United
Holding statements: (A) holding that even where an attorney exercises broad powers to represent a client in litigation these powers of representation alone do not create a specific authority to receive service (B) recognizing a state agencys powers are limited to 1 (C) recognizing separation of powers doctrine (D) holding that states grant of general corporate powers to hospital authorities does not include permission to use those powers anticompetitively (E) holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client

Ex Output:
recognizing a state agencys powers are limited to 1

Ex Input:
serve sixty-five percent of the time imposed on those sentences. The trial court acknowledged that counsel's understanding was erroneous but went on to conclude that counsel's "conduct and performance met the standard of performance." Analysis "[I]f a defendant enters a plea in reasonable reliance on his attorney's advice, which in turn was based on the attorney's honest mistake or misunderstanding, the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his plea." Trenary v. State, 453 So.2d 1132, 1133-34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see also State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235, 237 (Fla.1996) (citing Trenary and recognizing that "a defendant may be entitled to withdraw a plea entered in reliance upon his attorney's mistaken advice about sentenc ing"); Shell v. State, 501 So.2d 1334, 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>). Cornett will serve at least eighty-five
Holding statements: (A) holding that counsels mistaken advice that defendants photo would not be placed on the internet established good cause for permitting defendant to withdraw his guilty plea (B) holding that where a defendant is misled and induced to plead by his counsels mistaken advice then he may be allowed to withdraw his plea (C) holding that a defendant who has successfully challenged his plea in one ease should be allowed to withdraw his plea in a second case when both cases were part of one negotiated settlement of his charges (D) holding that if the defendant fails to file a motion in the trial court to withdraw his plea he cannot attack it for the first time on appeal (E) holding that a defendant who is allowed to withdraw his plea must either withdraw his plea to all charges or to none when his plea to all charges was part of an agreement with the state

Ex Output:
holding that counsels mistaken advice that defendants photo would not be placed on the internet established good cause for permitting defendant to withdraw his guilty plea