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:
appealed the judgment of the Court of Veterans Appeals to this court. On appeal the Secretary contends that the Court of Veterans Appeals erred by not deferring to the Department's reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions governing claims for accrued benefits. The Secretary also disputes Mrs. Jones's assertion that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. ANALYSIS I. Jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of the Court of Veterans Appeals is conferred upon this court by 38 U.S.C. 7292 (1994). Under the express terms of that statute, however, we "may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case." 38 U 625, 110 S.Ct. 2658, 2663-64, 110 L.Ed.2d 563 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to hear
Holding statements: (A) holding that a district courts remand order effectively invalidating certain regulations of the secretary of health and human services was an immediately appealable order (B) holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable (C) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (D) holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (E) holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order
answer:
holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable

question:
transfer, and everything else about the transaction was local to St. Thomas, to wit: Franklin Martinez, the lender and president of Transcaribbean, is a St. Thomas resident and has substantial business interests in the Virgin Islands. Those interests include that Martinez is an officer and part-owner of Colombian Emeralds, Inc. and its subsidiaries, and a part-owner of Sea Wind Food Distributors, Inc., Clark asserts that federal jurisdiction is inappo-site because the transaction occurred between Martinez and Peter Clark both local businessmen and involved a loan to fund a local real-estate development. This argument fails because the Court may assume jurisdiction on the basis of a single interstate wire communication. See United States v. Pecora, 693 F.2d 421, 424 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, facts alleged by Clark about the
Holding statements: (A) holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction (B) holding that the jurys guilty verdict on the separate substantive count of bribery under federal law confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that the jury would have convicted the defendant of honest services fraud if the courts definition had been limited to the bribery basis that skilling expressly approved (C) holding in action involving single claim that if claim sounded only in admiralty there would be no right to a jury trial but if federal question was present as a separate and independent basis for federal jurisdiction then the jury demand must be honored (D) holding that a federal court can assume jurisdiction over a local bribery ease involving only local residents on the basis of a single interstate telephone call (E) holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed
answer:
holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction

question:
hostile work environment claims from the general Ricks rule because such claims " 'cannot be said to occur on any particular day,' and instead usually involve a pattern of acts that aren't 'actionable on [their] own' but give rise to a legal violation only when assessed in their totality." Almond, 665 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115-16, 122 S.Ct. 2061). Here, the Court does not construe Plaintiffs pleadings to allege a hostile work environment claim. Even construing Plaintiffs pleadings liberally, his generic assertions that Defendant Beilis treated him in a hostile manner toward the end of his employment and sent him hostile emails fall far short of asserting a claim for age-based hostile work environment. See Phillips v. Moore, 164 F.Supp.2d 1245, 1254 (D.Kan.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, despite Plaintiffs averment that
Holding statements: (A) holding that supervisors routine vulgar references to plaintiff could not support a hostile work environment claim because plaintiff was unaware of the comments and to show that he or she perceived the environment as hostile a title vii plaintiff must at least have been aware of those comments (B) holding that the plaintiff failed to state an agebased hostile work environment claim where the plaintiffs proffered evidence was nothing more than a collection of unrelated and infrequent incidents of conduct by the defendants that the plaintiff subjectively construe as acts motived by agerelated animus and which was devoid of the agerelated comments or ridicule that are hallmarks of hostile work environment claims (C) holding that certain conduct was irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of it (D) recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 (E) holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive
answer:
holding that supervisors routine vulgar references to plaintiff could not support a hostile work environment claim because plaintiff was unaware of the comments and to show that he or she perceived the environment as hostile a title vii plaintiff must at least have been aware of those comments