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:
issue, we need not consider the second argument raised. 7 . In a dissent to Smith, Judge Friedman, joined by Judges Pellegrini and Kelley, objected to following the Miller/Lewis/Selan line of cases which automatically equated the refusal to sign a hospital consent form with a refusal to submit to chemical testing. The dissenting judges expressed preference for the other line of caselaw, particularly Conrad, and noted that because Smith orally agreed to the blood test and only refused to sign the hospital consent form, which was a pre-test procedure linked to the test, although not required by section 1547, Smith did not make a knowing and conscious refusal to submit to chemical testing. 8 . Wheatley v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 104 Pa.Cmwlth. 171, 521 A.2d 507 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 9 Although Renwick does not expressly
Holding statements: (A) holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547 (B) holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion (C) holding that refusal to submit to breathalyzer test did not result from custodial interrogation (D) holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 (E) holding that a district court did not clearly err in crediting agents testimony that a defendant had orally consented despite his refusal to sign consent form

Ex Output:
holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547

Ex Input:
purpose of this Memorandum is to explain why the Court declined to do these things. As disclosed by plaintiff in its ex parte motion, the sale of decoding devices like those defendants are claimed to have offered and sold is prohibited by federal criminal statute, see 47 U.S.C. 553(b), as well as by Illinois criminal statute, see 720 ILCS 5/16-10(a)(4). Under the circumstances, information disclosing defendants' purchases and sales of the devices, the revenues obtained from those sales, the assets they now have that may have been derived from those sales, and the locations where they keep their records and other descrambling devices is, without question, information that might tend to incriminate the defendants. See, e.g., FTC v. H.N. Singer, Inc., 668 F.2d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); SEC v. Rehtorik, 755 F.Supp. 1018, 1019
Holding statements: (A) holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government (B) holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment (C) holding that abrogating the right to sell endangered eagles feathers did not implicate the fifth amendment (D) holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege (E) recognizing that preliminary injunction requiring defendant to disclose records might implicate fifth amendment

Ex Output:
holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government

Ex Input:
achieved dismissal of 59% of the Plaintiffs' causes of action, the Court finds that McKool Smith is only entitled to that same percentage of the fees requested in the Fee Statements. See Roussell v. Brinker Int'l, Inc., No. H-05-3733, 2010 WL 1881898, at *3 (S.D.Tex. Jan.13, 2010) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933) (noting that the most important of the Johnson factors to be considered in adjustments to the lodestar fee is "overall degree of success achieved"); Arnold, 2000 WL 354395, at *7-8 (citing Shipes v. Trinity Indus., 987 F.2d 311, 320 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 991, 114 S.Ct. 548, 126 L.Ed.2d 450 (1993)) (considering the results obtained in making a downward adjustment to the lodestar fee); Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041, 1048 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court reduces the lodestar
Holding statements: (A) holding that deficiencies in a fee application justified a fortyfive percent reduction in the allowable fees (B) holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to award attorneys fees based on the objective unreasonableness of plaintiffs complaint (C) holding that the court has discretion to double check the reasonableness of the percentage fee through a lodestar calculation (D) holding that even after a ten percent reduction to the lodestar fee the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider the result obtained relative to the attorneys fees requested (E) holding that under 1988 consideration of the results obtained relative to the relief requested is required

Ex Output:
holding that deficiencies in a fee application justified a fortyfive percent reduction in the allowable fees