Detailed Instructions: 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: It is true that "[i]f a party timely files a petition for rehearing or reconsideration in accordance with the rules of the agency, the time to petition for review [by this court] runs from the date when notice of the order denying the petition is given." D.C. App. R. 15 (b). By referring to "a petition," the rule seems to allow only one motion for reconsideration to toll the time for appeal. Id. However, we need not rely solely on such a close parsing of the rule. There are sound policies behind permitting only one motion for reconsideration to extend the time for seeking review. Otherwise, a party could defeat the purpose of setting time limits for seeking appellate review by repeatedly filing motions for reconsideration. See, e.g., Yates v. Behrend, 280 F.2d 64, 65 (D.C. Cir. 1960) (<HOLDING>); De Foe v. Nat'l Capital Bank, 90 A.2d 242,
Holding statements: (A) holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal (B) holding that a second motion for reconsideration did not toll the time for appeal because to hold otherwise would permit dilatory tactics destructive of the finality of the judgment (C) holding filing of motion for reconsideration does not toll the 30day deadline for filing petition for review (D) holding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for seeking judicial review of the underlying order (E) holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending
A:
holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal