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.

Ex Input:
controversy turns, in part, on a categorization of the loss at issue; an inherently factual determination requiring the testimony of Penn and NBC staff juxtaposed against Gioia's onsite analysis. Thus, Gioia is a material witness and his convenience weighs in favor of transfer. B. Locus of the Operative Facts "Where there is no material connection between the district and'the operative facts, ... the interests of justice require the transfer of [the] action." Manao Invests., 1997 WL 53200, at *2 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). 'When determining the locus of operative facts in a declaratory judgment action concerning the interpretation of an insurance policy contract, this Court has considered where the insurance contract was made." Royal Ins., 2002 WL 31385815, at *3-4 (<HOLDING>). Here, while it is unclear whether
Holding statements: (A) holding that neither the new york location of the terrorist attack giving rise to the policyholders claim nor the new yorkbased claims adjustor rendered new york the locus of operative facts because new york was not the site of the contracts execution (B) holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership (C) holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york (D) holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york (E) holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action

Ex Output:
holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership

Ex Input:
supervising, or otherwise controlling the agent" in addition to any vicarious liability that may be imposed via the agent's actions. We hold that plaintiffs under the ICRA may proceed against the employer on either a direct negligence or vicarious liability theory for supervisor harassment in a hostile-work-environment case. The Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense, with the burden of proof on the employer, applies only to claims of vicarious liability. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 764, 118 S.Ct. at 2270 (adopting affirmative defense "in order to accommodate the agency principle of vicarious liability for harm caused by misuse of supervisory authority" (emphasis added)); accord Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807, 118 S.Ct. at 2292; see also Johnson v. Shinseki, 811 F.Supp.2d 336, 348 n.2 (D.D.C. 2011) (<HOLDING>); Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 803
Holding statements: (A) holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct (B) holding that if a state case explicitly states that the state standard is more favorable to the defendant than the federal standard the federal claim is considered adjudicated below when the state standard is applied (C) holding because the court applied the negligence standard the faragher defense is inapplicable (D) holding that equitable defense of laches is inapplicable to claims of fraud (E) holding that even though the court does not usually apply the clearly erroneous standard to mixed questions of fact and law this standard is properly applied to the materiality issue

Ex Output:
holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct

Ex Input:
Committee recognizes that the fishing industry is compelled to deal with the vicissitudes of fish stocks, abundance, changes in consumer choice, and economic conditions which makes for a great deal of uncertainty. There is, however, a need to protect all concerned parties by discouraging persons from deliberately and knowingly providing the Councils with false information. The Committee has thus attempted to clarify these issues. See House Comm, on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, H. Rep. No. 99-165 (1985), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6249, 6254-55. This language, the only legislative history related to 16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(I), simply indicates the rationale for that provision. It in no way suggests that Congress intended to preempt 18 U.S.C. 1001. Cf. Anderez, 661 F.2d at 407 & n. 7 (<HOLDING>). Having determined that appellants' preemption
Holding statements: (A) holding that legislative history of the misdemeanor provisions of the currency and foreign transactions reporting act 31 usc 1058 1101 indicated only that the provisions would be of tremendous help and did not suggest congresss intent to preempt 18 usc 1001 (B) holding that 18 usc 1920 the misdemeanor false statement provision of the federal employees compensation act feca preempted 18 usc 1001 because 41 of feca expressly repealed all inconsistent statutes (C) holding that 18 usc 1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc 1001 (D) holding that because the bank had no duty to report defendants structured transactions these transactions did not constitute material facts within the meaning of 18 usc 1001 consequently defendant may not be held criminally liable under 18 usc 2b for causing the bank to fail to disclose a material fact (E) holding that a wide application was required given the legislative intent for the remedial provisions of the act

Ex Output:
holding that 18 usc 1920 the misdemeanor false statement provision of the federal employees compensation act feca preempted 18 usc 1001 because 41 of feca expressly repealed all inconsistent statutes