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.

Input: Consider Input: In my judgment, it is extremely doubtful that the obviously dispensable involvement of the judiciary in the intermediate stages of a procedure that begins and ends in the Executive Branch is a proper exercise of judicial power. See Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. Appx. 697, 702-703 (1864) (opinion of Taney, C. J.); United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40, 48 (1852). It may well follow that the misguided opinion of today's majority has nothing more than an advisory character. Whether or not that be so, the better rea soning in Justice Souter's far wiser and far more scholarly opinion will surely be the law one day. For these reasons, as well as those set forth in Justice Souter's opinion, I respectfully dissent. 1 See, e. g., Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1 (1989) (<HOLDING>); In re Merchants Grain, Inc., 59 F. 3d 630
Holding statements: (A) holding that an action by plaintiffs who had a legal obligation to conduct cleanup pursuant to a 106 order and then sought costs for cleanup from other prps was the quintessential action for contribution (B) holding that a federal court may order a state to pay cleanup costs pursuant to the comprehensive environmental response compensation and liability act of 1980 (C) holding that response costs can be necessary even though the agency that required cleanup never approved the response actions taken (D) holding that bankruptcy court may enjoin state environmental reclamation order (E) holding that debtor was liable to the commonwealth for past and future cleanup costs

Output: holding that an action by plaintiffs who had a legal obligation to conduct cleanup pursuant to a 106 order and then sought costs for cleanup from other prps was the quintessential action for contribution

Input: Consider Input: opportunity to be heard on the issue ofrepayment of unemployment benefits. {32} The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a due pr e Court of Appeals of Minnesota that distinguish Schulte where the Court ultimately held that there was no constitutional violation when the employee did participate in the hearing. See Comm 'r of Nat. Res. v. Nicollet Cty.Pub. Water/Wetlands Hearings Unit, 633 N.W.2d 25, 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (affirming an appellate denial of the appellant's due process claim based on constitutionally valid notice of the hearing because the appellant knew the potential consequences of a reversal of the initial decision and participated in the appeal with counsel); see also Aubin v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. A14-0483, 2014 WL 6724937, at *4-5 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2014) (<HOLDING>); Koch v. Sheldahl, No. A03-1562, 2004 WL
Holding statements: (A) holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination (B) holding that it is not (C) holding that doctrine does not violate due process (D) holding that online system of appeals did not violate due process rights because it was not affirmatively misleading and it adequately explained the potential consequences of failing to file a timely appeal citations omitted (E) holding that on summary judgment a court may not disregard evidence merely because it serves the interests of the party introducing it citations omitted

Output: holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination

Input: Consider Input: simply, whether the officer intends that a detention lead to a prosecution has no bearing on whether an arrest has occurred. Id. at 513-14, 723 A.2d 423 (citations omitted). Terry constituted a limited departure from the requirement of probable cause to support a seizure. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a police officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop, without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment, if the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868; see Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S.Ct. 673, 675, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000); Royer, 460 U.S. at 498, 103 S.Ct. 1319; see also United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881-82, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92
Holding statements: (A) holding that although roving patrols in which officers stop and question motorists about their resident status may be conducted without probable cause such stops must at least show that the stopping officer is aware of specific articulable facts together with rational inferences from those facts that reasonably warrant suspicion that a vehicle contains illegal aliens who may be illegally in the country (B) holding that the stop of defendants vehicle was unlawful where officers stopped the vehicle to check the license and registration but had observed no suspicious activity (C) holding that when a border patrol officers observations lead him or her to reasonably suspect that a vehicle may contain illegal aliens the officer may stop the vehicle question its occupants as to citizenship and immigration status and ask them to explain suspicious circumstances but stating that any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause (D) holding that officers may detain the occupants of a vehicle while executing a search warrant (E) holding that a border patrol agents blocking the stopped vehicle approaching the vehicle with his gun drawn and interrogating the individual about his citizenship and immigration status did not convert the stop into a custodial arrest
Output: holding that although roving patrols in which officers stop and question motorists about their resident status may be conducted without probable cause such stops must at least show that the stopping officer is aware of specific articulable facts together with rational inferences from those facts that reasonably warrant suspicion that a vehicle contains illegal aliens who may be illegally in the country