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]: statement during closing argument regarding his personal opinion of the defendant's guilt was improper, but not reversible error). Where it appears that no other verdict could have been properly rendered, prosecutorial misconduct is not reversible error. Hillen v. People, 59 Colo. 280, 284, 149 P. 250, 252 (1915). In light of the overwhelming evidence presented at trial against the defendant, we conclude that the prosecutor's improper remark during closing argument was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 985 (emphasis added); see also Harris, 888 P.2d at 268 (stating that "the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial will be considered on appeal when evaluating claims of prosecutorial misconduct"); Grandbouche v. People, 104 Colo. 175, 185, 89 P.2d 577, 581 (1939) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. People, 70 Colo. 313, 317, 201 P.
Holding statements: (A) holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment (B) holding the rule that the singular includes the plural obviously is not one to be applied except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute (C) holding that 1 usc 1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute (D) holding that the rule is that where the guilt of an accused is evident incidental improper action upon the part of the prosecuting officer may be overlooked (E) holding that the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material either to guilt or to punishment
[A]: holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment

[Q]: L.Ed.2d at 1035-86). Unfortunately, the adjective "readily" is subject to differing interpretations, and there has been disagreement regarding the meaning of "readily mobile." Decisions of the Indiana Court of Appeals are not consistent regarding whether automobiles under police observation or control are readily mobile so as to be subject to warrantless search under the automobile exception. E.g., compare, v. State, T5 N.E.2d 1207, 1211 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (legally parked automobile surrounded by police officers held not inherently mobile to qualify for automobile exeeption), transfer denied, and Edwards v. State, 768 N.E.2d 506, 508-09 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (impounded vehicle no longer "inherently mobile"), trams. not sought, with Johnson v. State, 766 N.E2d 426, 483 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (<HOLDING>), trans. demied, and Justice v. State, 765
Holding statements: (A) holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver (B) holding that ready mobility existed when a car was capable of being driven even after the driver was arrested and despite the absence of other potential drivers (C) holding that ocga 40520 as safeharbor provision requires a defendant to produce a drivers license that was valid at the time the vehicle was being driven (D) holding warrantless search of vehicle was improper where car was not stopped on a highway but was parked at a residence with no occupants inside or near the vehicle and capable of being driven away by the turn of an ignition key (E) holding detention lawful when police referred driver to secondary to check ownership of the vehicle after the driver admitted that the car did not belong to him and the registration revealed that the car was owned by another
[A]: holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver

[Q]: statute? [Counsel]: There's no answer that I can give Your Honor, just wasn't done, and my argument is that the merits of the statute, the substance, the intent of it has been fulfilled based on the report that has been provided. It is apparent that non-compliance with the statute in this case was due to attorney carelessness. An attorney's carelessness does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. See Palanque, supra, 327 N.J.Super. at 164, 742 A.2d 1002; see also Burns v. Belafsky, 326 N.J.Super. 462, 471-72, 741 A.2d 649 (App.Div.1999); Hyman Zamft Manard, L.L.C. v. Cornell, 309 N.J.Super. 586, 593, 707 A.2d 1068 (App.Div.1998); cf. Hartsfield v. Fantini, 149 N.J. 611, 619, 695 A.2d 259 (1997) and Wallace v. JFK Hartwyck at Oak Tree, Inc., 149 N.J. 605, 610, 695 A.2d 257 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The order is reversed. The case is remanded
Holding statements: (A) holding in both eases that an attorneys mistake cannot give rise to extraordinary circumstances capable of relaxing the thirtyday limitations period for filing a demand for a trial de novo after arbitration (B) holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo (C) holding plaintiffs motion for trial de novo of award in counterclaim only but not of damages awarded in main cause of action was not void and remanding for a trial de novo of both the main cause of action and the counterclaim (D) holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard (E) recognizing de novo standard of review
[A]:
holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo