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.

Q: rules or orders." Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 382.113(a). The legislature imposed only the two restrictions previously mentioned: an ordinance must be consistent with the Act and the commission's rules and orders and may not make unlawful a condition or act approved or authorized under the Act or the commission's rules or orders. Id. 382.113(b). If the ordinance violates one of these restrictions, however, then its preemption is implied with unmistakable clarity. We therefore turn next to the first of these restrictions and address the question of whether the Act and the ordinance are consistent. 3. The Clean Air Act and the tent with state legislation, we begin by comparing the purpose of each. See City of Weslaco v. Melton, 158 Tex. 61, 63-64, 308 S.W.2d 18, 19-20 (1958) (<HOLDING>); see also City of Brookside Vill. v. Comeau,
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute (B) holding state and federal actions not parallel for colorado river purposes because the remedies were different one was equitable and the other compensatory and the sources of law came from different states (C) holding that an implied warranty of merchantability does not create a labeling requirement different from or in addition to those mandated by fifra because the implied warranty of merchantability arises from the sale itself not from a state labeling regulation citation omitted (D) holding that completing sixth grade and a limited ability to read were not inconsistent with a valid iq score of 68 (E) holding that an ordinance banning the sale of grade a raw milk was not inconsistent with a state statute for grading and labeling milk because the two provisions served different purposes

A: recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute
****
Q: 198, 15, 761 A.2d 291 (adopting the view that we should not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it" (quotation marks omitted)). 12 . In fact, the court already could have terminated the guardianship. The mother represented in her first four affidavits that the child's father was unknown. There is now no dispute that she believed R.M. to be the father, and informed him and the court of that fact just weeks after filing her affidavit. When, in January of 2010, the court realized that the father had been identified, it could have terminated the guardianship because it was based on the fraud or misrepresentation of the mother. See 18-A M.R.S. 5-204; M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); Presnell v. Peoples Heritage Bank, 619 A.2d 1205, 1206 (Me.1993) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the guardianship may no longer exist
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the courts inherent sua sponte powers in certain circumstances to allow it to manage its own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases in the furtherance of justice quotation marks omitted (B) recognizing inherent power in the courts to preserve the efficient and expeditious administration of justice and protect it from being impaired or destroyed (C) recognizing a district judge may dismiss a case sua sponte under either rule 41b or its inherent authority to manage its docket (D) recognizing every federal appellate court has a special obligation to consider its own jurisdiction even if it must do so sua sponte (E) holding that the right to choose counsel cannot be manipulated so as to obstruct the orderly procedure in the courts or to interfere with the fair administration of justice

A: recognizing inherent power in the courts to preserve the efficient and expeditious administration of justice and protect it from being impaired or destroyed
****
Q: argument that "unusual circumstances" warranted a departure from the rule. We now turn to our reasons for abrogating Coulter. At issue is Coulters holding that [i]n the absence of unusual circumstances, the hours allowed for preparing and litigating the attorney fee case should not exceed 3% of the hours in the main case when the issue is submitted on the papers without a trial and should not exceed 5% of the hours in the main case when a trial is necessary. Coulter, 805 F.2d at 151. Pla the right to revisit this question, see Collard v. Kentucky Board of Nursing, 896 F.2d 179, 183 (6th Cir. 1990). This is true even in the unusual situation where binding circuit precedent overlooked earlier Supreme Court authority. Ballinger v. Prelesnik, 709 F.3d 558, 561-62 (6th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>); see also Atl. Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex
Holding statements: (A) holding that the rule for habeas review in brown v smith 551 f3d 424 6th cir 2008 had been called into doubt by harrington v richter 562 us 86 131 sct 770 178 led2d 624 2011 even though robinson v howes 663 f3d 819 823 n2 6th cir 2011 which was decided after harrington applied brown (B) holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court (C) holding that ylsts look through doctrine survives harrington v richter us 131 sct 770 178 led2d 624 2011 (D) holding that an award of makewhole relief in the form of surcharge was within the scope of appropriate equitable relief for purposes of 502a3 quoting cigna corp v amara us 131 sct 1866 1880 179 led2d 843 2011 (E) holding government had not met its burden allowing it to invoke the brown v ohio 432 us 161 97 sct 2221 53 led2d 187 1977 exception

A:
holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court
****