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: with intent to murder"; therefore, the two convictions did not violate double jeopardy. Id. In addition to comparing the statutory elements of an offense both in the abstract under Blockburger and as applied to the facts of the particular case under Duchac, courts consider other factors relevant to ascertaining legislative intent. These factors include the following: (1) whether there were multiple victims involved; (2) whether several discrete acts were involved; and (3) whether the evil at which each offense is directed is the same or different. As we noted in Goins, "generally, if a criminal episode involves several victims who have personally been victimized, the evidence could sustain multiple convictions." Goins, 705 S.W.2d at 651 (citing State v. Irvin, 603 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn.1980)(<HOLDING>)). In Goins, however, we held that the multiple
Holding statements: (A) holding that a single transaction involving multiple obscene materials constitutes but one offense (B) holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured (C) holding that multiple convictions under 924c cannot be based on offenses forming a single unit of prosecution (D) holding that killing more than one person in a single automobile accident justified multiple homicide convictions (E) holding that a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses under 922g on the basis that he belonged to more than one prohibited class or that he simultaneously possessed more than one firearm
Example Output: holding that a single transaction involving multiple obscene materials constitutes but one offense

Example Input: where the-plaintiff seeks to subject private parties to 1983 liability by bestowing on them the title of state actors. The instant case does not involve a situation where the State has " 'so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with the [private party] that it was a joint participant in the enterprise.' " Harvey, 949 F.2d at 1131 (quoting NBC . Communications Workers of Am., AFL-CIO, 860 F.2d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir.1988) (citation omitted)). The Eleventh Circuit in Harvey, confronting facts similar to the case at bar and the issue of whether involuntary commitment by private parties may be considered state action, found an insufficient nexus between the defendants, a private hospital and private physicians, and the State. See id.; see also Rockwell, 26 F.3d at 258 (<HOLDING>). The court observed that "[b]oth the Supreme
Holding statements: (A) holding that ccmc and its employees were not state actors under either the symbiotic relationship or close nexus test (B) holding that massachusetts statute did not create a sufficiently close nexus between private hospital and the state to warrant labeling private actors state actors (C) holding that foster parents are not state actors (D) holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability (E) holding that private hospital and physicians who involuntarily committed plaintiff under massachusetts statute were not state actors noting that state regulation even if extensive and receipt of federal funds do not establish state action
Example Output: holding that ccmc and its employees were not state actors under either the symbiotic relationship or close nexus test

Example Input: Department Country Reports and other exhibits regarding country conditions in Senegal contained in the record; (3) the letter from a family friend introduced by Sene at his immigration hearing; and (4) a credibility determination regarding Sene's testimony. The motion panel provisionally denied INS' motion and ordered briefing to proceed on the merits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(1) to review final orders of removal. Factual determinations made by the BIA are reviewed to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence. Senathirajah v. INS, 157 F.3d 210, 216 (3d Cir.1998). However, we must uphold the BIA's findings of fact unless the evidence compels otherwise. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 3, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (<HOLDING>). We summarily deny Sene's request for relief
Holding statements: (A) holding that we will not reverse in the absence of prejudice (B) recognizing that appellate court may reverse trial courts judgment when it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law (C) holding that to reverse the bia we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion but compels it (D) holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion (E) holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte
Example Output:
holding that we will not reverse in the absence of prejudice