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: 375 F.3d 1341 (Fed.Cir.2004). Since, as we explain below, sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict, we need not consider whether the District's failure to move for judgment as a matter of law at the close of its own case (as opposed to at the close of Smith's case) further limits our review "to considering whether the verdict is so unsupported by the evidence that allowing it to stand would constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice," Fredrick, 254 F.3d at 162. The District presents two fact-based challenges to the jury's verdict. First, it argues that the jury could not have reasonably concluded that the District had a deliberately indifferent policy or custom under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Second, it claims that even had such a policy
Holding statements: (A) holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under 1983 through official policy or custom (B) holding that county liability under 1983 cannot rest on a theory of respondeat superior (C) holding that conditionsofconfinement claims must be brought in 42 usc 1983 civil rights complaint rather than in habeas petition (D) recognizing respondeat superior liability (E) holding that municipal liability for purposes of claims brought under 42 usc 1983 must stem from an unconstitutional policy or custom rather than simply from respondeat superior

Answer: holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under 1983 through official policy or custom

Question: challenge to the amount of refund awarded by DOE to a third-party claimant even though they failed to intervene while DOE was deciding the third-party claimant's award"). Persistent, the defendant analogizes the instant APA claim with that denied in Brooks v. Snow, 313 F.Supp.2d 654 (S.D.Tex.2004). There, the plaintiffs sought a declaration from the court that Treasury Regulation 26 C.F.R. 301.722-1 (listing the grounds authorizing the IRS to settle a tax case) was inconsistent with congressional intent, because the regulation omitted delays caused by the IRS in determining tax liability. Id. at 658-59. The court dismissed their complaint, explaining that they had not "allege[d] they ever submitted any offers-in-compromise and, therefore, they have not upp. 239, 255 (Ct.Cl. 1947) (<HOLDING>). Second, and most crucially, this plaintiff
Holding statements: (A) holding that a refund may include additional taxes paid after the filing of a refund claim so long as the total does not exceed the portion of tax paid prior to the administrative claim (B) holding under section 7422a that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a taxpayers refund claim because the taxpayer failed to file a refund claim before the statute of limitations had run (C) holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted (D) holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate (E) holding that a subsequent refund request on reassessed taxes was unnecessary as the government already had notice of the plaintiffs claim

Answer: holding that a refund may include additional taxes paid after the filing of a refund claim so long as the total does not exceed the portion of tax paid prior to the administrative claim

Question: lacks jurisdiction to review the order denying reconsideration. See Betty B Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 194 F.3d 491, 496 (4th Cir.1999) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction petition seeking review of order "summarily denying] reconsideration"). Turning to the underlying Board order, this court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders of the Board. 33 U.S.C. 921(c); see Eggers v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 11 F.3d 35, 38 (4th Cir.1993) ("The finality requirement contained in 921 encompasses the same concepts as finality in 28 U.S.C. 1291 [ (2006) ].") Because the Board remanded the case for further proceedings, the Board's order is not a final order. See Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 853 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for
Holding statements: (A) holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award (B) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (C) holding that an order remanding to an administrative law judge for further findings is not in general immediately appealable under 33 usc 921c (D) holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order (E) holding that the issue of whether the attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine

Answer:
holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award