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.
Input: his relatively straightforward FOIA case unaided, the magistrate did not need to go any further. In addition, we reject Willis's contention that the court erred in selecting Local Civil Rule 83.11 as the appropriate standard rather than Poindexter's multifactor test. The Poindexter criteria are the plaintiffs ability to afford an attorney; the merits of the plaintiffs case; plaintiffs efforts to secure counsel; and the capacity of the plaintiff to present the case adequately without the aid of counsel. 737 F.2d at 1185 be considered include the indigent's ability to conduct whatever factual investigation is necessary, the complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the capability of the indigent litigant to present the case); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Because the district court acted within its
Holding statements: (A) holding that a 22month delay was particularly understandable and largely neutral with respect to the first barker factor given the presence of multiple defendants the large number of allegations and the complexity of the charges and evidence (B) holding that although the guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark of calculating a proper sentence the district court should then consider all of the 3553a factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party (C) holding that when evaluating a settlement agreement the court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the parties nor is it to run consideration of the adequacy of the settlement into a trial or a rehearsal of the trial rather the cjourts responsibility is to reach an intelligent and objective opinion of the ultimate success should the claims be litigated and to form an educated estimate of the complexity expense and likely duration of such litigation and all other factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise (D) holding that representation by counsel until the first day of trial likely exposed the defndant to the complexity of his case and the legal process (E) holding that courts should consider a number of factors including the type and complexity of the case and whether the indigent is capable of adequately presenting the case
Output:
holding that a 22month delay was particularly understandable and largely neutral with respect to the first barker factor given the presence of multiple defendants the large number of allegations and the complexity of the charges and evidence