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.

Example Input: is clear." Investment Company Institute, 891 F.Supp.2d at 205. The appellants also assert that the agency improperly counted hypothetical benefits, but this assertion is incorrect. It was appropriate for CFTC to count the benefits flowing from its registration and disclosure requirements in 4.5 and 4.27, as the specifics of those requirements are finalized and not subject to the harmonization rule. The appellants further complain that CFTC failed to put a precise number on the benefit of data collection in preventing future financial crises. But the law does not require agencies to measure the immeasurable. CFTC's discussion of unquantifiable benefits fulfills its statutory obligation to consider and evaluate potential costs and benefits. See Fox, 556 U.S. at 519, 129 S.Ct. 1800 (<HOLDING>). Where Congress has required "rigorous,
Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies (B) holding that new york city agencies cannot be sued (C) holding that agencies are not required to adduce empirical data that cannot be obtained (D) holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment (E) recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence
Example Output: holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies

Example Input: of the statute before many petitioners would be able to identify, with reasonable certainty, the nature of the injury. Brice v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 36 Fed.Cl. 474, 477 (1996), aff'd on other grounds, 240 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2001). In Brice, we held that equitable tolling is not available for claims arising under 300-16(a)(2), reasoning that "the statute of limitations here begins to run upon the first symptom or manifestation of the onset of injury, even if the petitioner reasonably would not have known at that time that the vaccine had caused an injury." 240 F.3d at 1373; see also Sharpnack v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-983V, 1992 WL 167255, at *2 (Cl.Ct. Special Master June 29, 1992), aff'd, 27 Fed.Cl. 457 (1993), aff'd, 17 F.3d 1442 (Fed.Cir.1994) (table) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court, in Whitecotton,
Holding statements: (A) holding that absolute immunity protects judges so long as their acts are judicial in nature internal quotation omitted (B) holding substantial evidence is defined as more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance and consists of such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a eonclusion (C) holding that in many vaccine program cases the injuries are first manifest ed as subtle signs and seizures of less complicated nature eg seizures lasting less than 30 minutes or seizure activity so subtle as to be unrecognized at their onset (D) holding that the govemment is not liable under the federal tort claims act for injuries to service members where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service (E) holding that the united states is immune from monetary damages for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service
Example Output: holding that absolute immunity protects judges so long as their acts are judicial in nature internal quotation omitted

Example Input: "A person can be convicted for conspiring with unknown persons, if the indictment charges conspiracy with unknown persons and the evidence supports their existence and their complicity in the conspiracy." United States v. Dukes, 139 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir.1998); see also United States v. Villasenor, 894 F.2d 1422, 1428 (5th Cir.1990). For example, in Dukes we held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a conspiracy with an unidentified drug supplier who twice brought drugs for sale to a confidential informant in the defendant's presence and who paid the defendant a portion of the proceeds from one sale that was successfully completed. Dukes, 139 F.3d at 472, 475. Here, the indictment charged that Boyd conspired with unknown persons, and Evelyn French tes x. 383, 387 (5th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). In short, it cannot be inferred whether the
Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy where the evidence did not show that individuals who sold drugs to the defendant knew that the drugs were meant to be resold (B) holding that evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession where the defendant was in jail at the time the drugs were seized from his residence (C) holding extraneous evidence that defendant was using drugs admissible under rule 404b because evidence not offered to show that defendant was drug user and was using drugs at the time of the offense but to rebut the defense of consensual sex (D) holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs (E) holding that evidence that the defendant and a witness sold drugs together was relevant to prove how the witness knew the defendant
Example Output:
holding that evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession where the defendant was in jail at the time the drugs were seized from his residence