instruction:
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.
question:
court's credibility determinations "unless the court credited testimony that was essentially unbelievable as a matter of law," United States v. Smith, 308 F.3d 726, 746 (7th Cir.2002). There is no clear error in the district court's decision to credit the presentence investigation report and Officer Morrissey's sworn testimony over the unsworn, hearsay statement of the defendant. See United States v. Torres-Ramirez, 213 F.3d 978, 980-81 (7th Cir.2000) ('When the sentence rests on testimony under oath ... it is enough that the judge believe the witness unless the testimony is illogical or contradicted by documents or other physical evidence, making it clearly erroneous to accept the witness's version of events."); United States v. Krankel, 164 F.3d 1046, 1054-55 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Campbell directs us to no inconsistencies in
Holding statements: (A) holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error (B) holding that where defendant did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute presentence report district court was free to adopt facts in psi without further inquiry (C) holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report (D) holding that bald unsupported assertions by the defendant cannot refute presentence investigation report (E) holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report
answer:
holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error

question:
in a 3-2 decision does not settle the intent issue, because Honkanen did not consider the difference between intent to injure or inflict pain and intent to correct. Additionally, Honkanen's rationale may be outdated in light of the 2001 amendments to NRS 48.061, which expand the use of bad-act evidence in domestic violence cases, 2001 Nev. Stat., ch. 360, 1, at 169; see NRS 33.018(1)(a) (defining "domestic violence" to include battery on an accused's minor child), and Bigpond, which recognizes that character evidence can be admissible so long as it has a credible, non- propensity purpose, such as explaining the relationship dynamics between a domestic-violence victim and the accused. 128 Nev. at 111, 270 P.3d at 1246; see also Harris v. State, 195 P.3d 161, 182 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Cherry, J., concurring in part and dissenting
Holding statements: (A) holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper (B) holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence (C) recognizing that the holding in harvey v state 604 p2d 586 590 alaska 1979 a case similar to honkanen had been abrogated by the amendment of alaskas rule 404b to allow admission of prior incidents of domestic violence as an exception to the general rule against admitting such evidence (D) recognizing general rule (E) recognizing this as the general rule
answer:
holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper

question:
an off-the-record discussion with the prosecutor and defense counsel, the trial court departed downward, explaining that a prison sentence seemed "unreasonable" given the nature of the crime. The trial judge also discussed the need for restitution, but never clearly identified this as a justification for the departure sentence. Although the State made it clear, for the record, that it would not offer a departure sentence as part of a negotiated plea, the State never objected to the court's imposition of a departure sentence. Rather, the prosecutor told the judge that if she "would like to mitigate, that's on you, that's not from the State." Accordingly, we find that the issue was not preserved for appellate review, and affirm. See State v. Colbert, 968 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. PALMER, LAWSON, and JACOBUS, JJ.,
Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal (B) holding that claim was preserved for subsequent appeal by objection at original sentencing hearing (C) holding that to successfully challenge a departure sentence on appeal the state must properly preserve the issue by objection during the sentencing hearing (D) holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal (E) holding that failure to preserve a fundamental sentencing error by motion under rule 3800b or by objection during the sentencing hearing forecloses a defendant from raising the error on direct appeal
answer:
holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal