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: State, after expressing its clear and accurate understanding of the ... issue ..., deliberately steer[s] the District Court away from the question and towards the merits of [the] petition." Wood v. Milyard, U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1826, 1835, 182 L.Ed.2d 733 (2012) (internal citation omitted). In Wood, the state had assured the district court that it was "not challenging, but d[id] not concede, the timeliness of the petition." Id. at 1830. As in Wood, the state's words and conduct cannot be described as an inadvertent mistake or forfeiture of the exhaustion defense, as was the case in Day, but instead they clearly evidence an express intention to waive the exhaustion requirement. As the First Circuit said, "[t]hat was game, set, and match." Pike v. Guarino, 492 F.3d 61, 71-72 (1st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Other circuits have also held this type of
Holding statements: (A) holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal (B) holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding (C) holding that a waived issue ordinarily cannot be resurrected on appeal whereas a forfeited issue may be reviewed for plain error (D) holding statement that petitioner is correct in her assertion that the claims presented have been exhausted was unmistakably clear and could not be resurrected on appeal alteration in original (E) holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court

Answer: holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal

Question: the entirety ... to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety ... is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law." 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(B). a. Applicable Nonbankruptcy Law for Entirety Property Exemption To determine whether the Condominium is exempt from process, the court will look to the law of the situs of the real property. In this case that is Florida. "Under Florida law, entireties property is exempt from process to satisfy debts owed to individual creditors of either spouse. Entireties property is not exempt from process to satisfy the joint debts of both spouses." See In re Monzon, 214 B.R. 38, 40-41 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1997) (citing Neu v. Andrews, 528 So.2d 1278, 1279 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) and Stanley v. Powers, 123 Fla. 359, 166 So. 843, 846 (1936) (<HOLDING>)). "Courts have generally recognized that
Holding statements: (A) holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate (B) holding that an increase in the value of nonmarital property attributable to the efforts of one or both spouses during marriage is marital property (C) holding that a judgment debt against both spouses can be satisfied by selling the entireties property (D) holding that the irs may reach half of a nonliable spouses sole management community property to satisfy a liable spouses tax debt (E) holding that where one spouses arson destroyed the house which both spouses owned as tenants by the entireties the innocent spouse was entitled to recover under their fire insurance policy for her share of the loss

Answer: holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate

Question: he omitted information that he had been imprisoned and mistreated. The asylum officer who conducted the English-language interview did not testify at the hearing, and the record does not contain a transcript of the interview or the asylum officer's notes. Substantial evi- dence therefore does not support the BIA's reliance on this omission to find Ghebremedhin incredible, because the record does not support the agency's rejection of Ghebremedhin's explanation for the omission. See Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1087-91 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that without officer testimony or detailed notes from the asylum interview, an Assessment to Refer provides insufficient evidence to support an adverse credibility determination); see also Campos-Sanchez v. INS, 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Because the BIA relied on its credibility
Holding statements: (A) holding the bia must address in a reasoned manner the explanations that a petitioner offers for perceived inconsistencies (B) holding an ij must to address a petitioners explanation for inconsistencies to rely upon them as the basis for an adverse credibility finding (C) holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so (D) holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so (E) holding that an agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistencies in the record unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so

Answer:
holding an ij must to address a petitioners explanation for inconsistencies to rely upon them as the basis for an adverse credibility finding