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:
by " '(1) the peculiar dignity and protection to which the law cloaks the human person, as contrasted with articles of commerce; (2) the inequality of the bargaining positions and relative intelligence of the contracting parties; (3) the amount of consideration received; (4) the likelihood of inadequate knowledge concerning future consequences of present injury to the human body and brain; and (5) the haste, or lack thereof, with which release was obtained.' " Finch, 84 Wn.2d at 146 (quoting Finch v. Carlton, 10 Wn. App. 32, 39, 516 P.2d 212 (1973) (McInturff, J., dissenting)). 2 A few cases have imposed an affirmative duty to explain contracts when the defendants know the signer is illiterate or speaks another language. See Scott v. Bodnar, 52 N.J. Super. 439, 145 A.2d 643 (1958) (<HOLDING>); S. Pac. Co. v. Gastelum, 36 Ariz. 106, 283 P.
Holding statements: (A) holding failure to explain consequence of signature to illiterate plaintiff could be grounds for avoiding release (B) holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences mandated reversal (C) holding that failure to explain the effect of a term of supervised release was harmless error where term of imprisonment combined with maximum imprisonment for violation of supervised release was still less than statutory maximum (D) holding that 24 hours is sufficient time for a plaintiff to review release (E) holding that fundamental error occurred and reversal was required when trial court failed to explain allegations or to explain adequately future use of adjudication record

Ex Output:
holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences mandated reversal

Ex Input:
to commit himself to such an alternative to a federal sentence. 2 . Defendant also raises two additional arguments: (1) that the district court improperly based its sentence on the defendant's refusal to waive his constitutional and statutory rights to oppose his deportation; and (2) that the district court failed to appreciate the scope of its authority to consider, as a mitigating circumstance upon which to base a departure, defendant's vulnerability and susceptibility to abuse in prison due to his physical condition. Both arguments lack merit. As to the first argument, the conditioning of a downward departure on the surrender of a statutory right to a deportation hearing would not have offended due process. See United States v. Galvez-Falconi, 174 F.3d 255, 260 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). See generally United States v.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart (B) holding that district court had authority to grant section 5k20 downward departure despite governments opposition (C) holding that the district court was not required to state affirmatively on the record that it knew it possessed the authority to depart downward (D) holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart (E) holding that where a defendant malees a showing that the act of consenting to deportation carries unusual assistance to the administration of justice district court has authority under ussg 5k20 to depart downward in absence of the governments consent

Ex Output:
recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart

Ex Input:
claims and state law false arrest/false imprisonment claims. See Rankin, 133 F.3d at 1435 (stating that probable cause constitutes an absolute bar to both state and 1983 claims alleging false arrest); Dahl v. Holley, 312 F.3d 1228, 1236 (11th Cir.2002) ("[T]he existence of probable cause to arrest Dahl defeats her First Amendment claim."). In addition, because any contact with Sada, and any injury therefrom, was incidental to a lawful arrest, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Sada's battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress c arrest for battery, the district court properly concluded that the question of whether there was probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct is moot. See Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1195-96 (11th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 1 .
Holding statements: (A) holding that an officers subjective reason for making an arrest need not include the criminal offense that later establishes probable cause (B) holding that the courts determination of whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest is an independent and objective determination and an officers own subjective reason for the arrest is irrelevant (C) holding that when an arrest is properly supported by probable cause as to any offense neither the officers subjective reliance on an offense for which no probable cause exists nor his verbal announcement of the wrong offense vitiates the arrest (D) holding that the subjective reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause (E) holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed

Ex Output:
holding that an officers subjective reason for making an arrest need not include the criminal offense that later establishes probable cause