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 Q]: conversion should have an opportunity to reassert objections to exemptions. Indeed, Rule 1019(2) specifically addresses time period for actions after conversion, and provides for the re-running of times allowed for filing a claim, objecting to discharge and objecting to dischargeability. There is no new time period, however, for the trustee to assert objections to exemptions. "If a new time period for objections to exemptions began to run upon conversion of a case, one would expect to see it mentioned in Rule 1019(2), [and][i]t is not there." In re Brown, 178 B.R. 722, 728 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1995). Where the statute is clear, it is not appropriate to look to policy arguments. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240-41, 109-S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) (<HOLDING>), and none of the policy arguments are
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear (B) holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint (C) holding that the relevant dispositive inquiry is whether it would be clear to a reasonable state official that his conduct was unlawful (D) holding that pursuant to 28 usc 2254d1 if the state court reached the correct result with respect to petitioners claim of constitutional violation even if on erroneous reasoning that is the end of our inquiry (E) holding that where the statutory scheme is clear the inquiry should end
[EX A]: recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear

[EX Q]: waived those rights. Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements. Defendant argues that the trial court made numerous errors in its order. Generally, an appellate court's review of a trial court's order on a motion'to suppress is limited to a determination of whether its findings are supported by competent evidence and, in turn, whether the findings support the trial court's ultimate conclusions of law. E.g., State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). However, here, as noted above, the State argues that defendant failed to preserve the issue because he did not object at trial. Defendant coun ters that no objection was necessary, distinguishing our recent opinion in State v. Oglesby, 361 N.C. 550, 554, 648 S.E.2d 819, 821 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Defendant's contention is that the judge who
Holding statements: (A) holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review (B) holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal (C) holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial (D) holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal (E) holding that a trial courts evidentiary ruling on a pretrial motion is not sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal unless a defendant renews the objection during trial
[EX A]: holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review

[EX Q]: Id. at 404. To support a 841(b)(1)(B) statutory enhancement, the government must file an information notifying the defendant of the enhancement and the prior convictions upon which it is based. 21 U.S.C. 851(a)(1). The defendant may respond that the conviction was obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and bears the burden of proving the conviction's constitutional infirmity by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. 851(c)(2). However, he may not "challenge the validity of any prior conviction alleged under this section which occurred more than five years before the date of the information alleging such prior conviction." Id. 851(e). We have upheld the validity of 851(e)'s limitations period. See United States v. Williams, 954 F.2d 668, 673 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The specific subsection of the Florida drug
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that reasonable time limitations may be placed on the exercise of constitutional rights (B) holding that although court should inform jury about defendants prior sentences the court should instruct the jury that it should not consider prior sentences in its decision to impose a life or death sentence because they are not statutory aggravating or mitigating factors (C) holding that imposition of lengthy sentences did not show prejudice where sentences were warranted by facts shown in the evidence (D) holding that 851es limitations period was constitutional because it was reasonably tailored to impose enhanced sentences on recidivists (E) holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences
[EX A]:
recognizing that reasonable time limitations may be placed on the exercise of constitutional rights