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 Q]: though it may be more expedient for the legislature to redraft the statute in its entirety. See Hill, 202 Ill. 2d at 156; McDougall, 389 Ill. at 155. Defendant further contends that the decision by another division of this appellate district in In re E.H., 355 Ill. App. 3d 564 (2005), which he claims held section 115 10 to be facially unconstitutional en toto, is "controlling." We begin by initially noting that defendant misstates the effect that the decision of one appellate court panel has upon the subsequent considerations of another. We are not bound by the decisions of the other divisions of this district so that even if E.H. held as defendant claims, it would not be "controlling" over our analysis. Muller v. Health & Hospital Governing Comm'n, 106 Ill. App. 3d 383, 386 (1982) (<HOLDING>), rev'd on other grounds, 93 Ill. 2d 543 (1983)
Holding statements: (A) holding res judicata applied to improper property division before holding parties were bound by their division agreement (B) holding that appellate court is not bound by the agencys interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue (C) holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending (D) holding itself not bound by the opinion of another division of its own appellate district (E) holding that this court is not bound by decisions of the appellate division or the third circuit even where those decisions concern the same parties and legal issues
[EX A]: holding res judicata applied to improper property division before holding parties were bound by their division agreement

[EX Q]: 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In Landgraf, the Court noted that a statute only truly operates retroactively if applying it would "impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Id. 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also RTC v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 30 F.3d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir.1994)(analyzing retroactivity of lease repudiation damage limitation provision of FIRREA). Thus, like other courts that have analyzed similar FIRREA provisions, we must address prior banking law to determine whether application of the damage limitation provisions of 1821(e)(3) would have the retroactive effect defined in Landgraf. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit, 30 F.3d at 1388 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that, in the Crafts' case, it
Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is not retroactive (B) holding that firreas damage limitations for repudiation of leases worked no substantive change in the law and thus their application was not retroactive (C) holding retroactive application (D) holding no retroactive application (E) recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary
[EX A]: holding that the act is not retroactive

[EX Q]: of petitioner's TDCJ medical and mental health records, is wholly credible. Therefore, petitioner's Ford/Panetti claim lacks any arguable merit. Petitioner is entitled to neither federal habeas corpus relief from this Court nor a continuation of his stay of execution. IV. Certificate of Appealability A. The Necessity for Obtaining a CoA The AEDPA converted the "certificate of probable cause" previously required as a prerequisite to an appeal from the denial of a petition for federal habeas corpus relief into a "Certificate of Appealability" ("CoA"). See Hill v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 78, 80 (5th Cir.l997)(recognizing the "substantial showing" requirement for a CoA under the AEDPA is merely a change in nomenclature from the CPC standard); Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir.l997)(<HOLDING>). The CoA requirement supersedes the previous
Holding statements: (A) holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict (B) holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met (C) holding the standard for obtaining a coa is the same as for a cpc (D) holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss (E) holding that the standard for supplementing an ea is the same as for an eis
[EX A]:
holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict