instruction:
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:
Therefore, the magistrate could not have relied on such information when making the probable cause determination. [ 23] When Utvick's room was searched on June 1, 2002, the officer observed persons in the room attempting to dispose of drugs by flushing in the bathroom, after executing a search warrant without a no-knock provision. While Ut-vick is not alleged to have engaged in this activity, Utvick was the registered guest of the hotel room and was in the company of persons suspected of disposing of evidence. Prior history of destruction of evidence, when detailed in an affidavit for a no-knock search warrant, is not a threshold requirement but may strengthen probable cause to believe evidence will be destroyed. Cf. Mazepink v. Arkansas, 336 Ark. 171, 987 S.W.2d 648, 655 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Henderson, 629 N.W.2d at 624 (holding
Holding statements: (A) holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant (B) holding that once the scene was secure exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant (C) holding noknock search warrant unreasonable because no exigent circumstances existed and noting moreover there was no evidence the occupants may have attempted to destroy the evidence by flushing it down the toilet (D) holding that officers may detain the occupants of a vehicle while executing a search warrant (E) holding no liability existed under the circumstances
answer:
holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant

question:
WTT Project area as defined by the Corps. NEF contends that we need not consider the State's argument because the State failed to raise this argument in its initial motion to clarify, instead raising it for the first time in its Rule 59(e) motion. "Rule 59(e) motions are 'aimed at reconsideration, not initial consideration.' " FDIC v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992) (quoting Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Bank of New England, 897 F.2d 611, 616 (1st Cir.1990)). In World University, this Court held that the defendant's argument, which it raised for the first time in a Rule 59(e) motion, was barred where there was no reason why the defendant could not have presented its argument prior to its motion to alter or amend the judgment. Id.; see also Engler, 146 F.3d at 374 (<HOLDING>). This rule, however, does not cover the facts
Holding statements: (A) holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument (B) holding that a party in a habeas case waives an argument by failing to raise it before the district court (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (D) holding that an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion (E) holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court
answer:
holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument

question:
that Rojas was an alien who was deported or removed from the United States and was subsequently found in the United States without authorization. The indictment does not rely on a particular removal for the 1326(a) charge, and at trial the government introduced and relied on evidence of Rojas's 1997 removal order as well as the April 2010 removal to prove the elements of the 1326(a) charge. Because the government relied on removals other than the April 2010 removal to support its case, we reject Rojas's argument that the court erred in not dismissing the 1326(a) charge in the indictment. 2 We must still consider, however, whether the district court erred in not dismissing the 1326(b) charge in the indictment. See United States v. W.R. Grace, 504 F.3d 745, 751 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In order to subject a defendant to
Holding statements: (A) holding that an indictment could not be dismissed based on claim that testimony was hearsay and incompetent (B) holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial the state claims should be dismissed as well (C) holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense (D) holding that a challenge to part b determinations in an order involving both part a and part b must begin in district court (E) recognizing that an indictment may be dismissed in part
answer:
holding that an indictment could not be dismissed based on claim that testimony was hearsay and incompetent