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: or require the information it did. In light of the information possessed by the District as of June 2, 2011, the District's interference with Rutherford's right to return began then, and continued until the District ultimately terminated him. Once a technical violation of the FMLA has been establishedand here, the undisputed facts show that a violation occurredthe interference inquiry turns to whether the plaintiff experienced prejudice resulting from the violation. Ridings v. Riverside Medical Center, 537 F.3d 755, 764 (7th Cir. 2008). The District arg e his fitness to return to work, he had such proofa note from his doctor stating that he was fit to workand attempted to present it on June 2, 2011. See Vannoy v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 827 F.3d 296, 302 (4th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). Instead of reinstating him, the District kept
Holding statements: (A) holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave (B) holding a plaintiff to be ineligible for fmla leave wherein the plaintiff had not accumulated enough work hours (C) holding that a plaintiff who was unable to return to work before his fmla leave expired did not allege any denial of an fmla right but noting that ragsdale left open the possibility that employees could recover for notice violations on a casebycase basis if there was actual harm resulting from the violations (D) holding that both the cfra and the fmla require the employee to provide notice to the employer of the employees intent to take leave (E) holding that sufficient evidence of prejudice existed where plaintiff would have structured leave differently but employer had not provided notice of fmla right to reinstatement

Output: holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave

Input: Consider Input: Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") because Erickson failed to allege specific facts showing a pattern of racketeering activity. See Sanford v. Member-Works, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 557-58 (9th Cir.2010) (discussing elements of a.RICO claim and particularity requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)). The district court properly dismissed Erickson's claims under the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ("RES-PA") and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") as time-barred because Erickson filed his action more than three years after the alleged violations. See 12 U.S.C. 2614 (prescribing at most a three-year statute of limitations for violations of RES-PA); 15 U.S.C. 1640(e) (an action for damages under TILA must be brought within one year of the alleged violation); see also King, 784 F.2d at 915 (<HOLDING>). However, after the district court dismissed
Holding statements: (A) holding fiveyear limitation period in 28 usc 2462 runs from date of predicate violation not from date of administrative assessment of sanction (B) holding limitations period for filing petition for postconviction relief runs from date of final judgment not from date of subsequent order revoking appeal bond (C) holding that oneyear period runs from the discovery of the transfer (D) holding that the limitations period in section 1640e runs from the date of consummation of the transaction (E) holding under section 1144s predecessor statute that the 180day period runs from the date of the confirmation order even if the fraud is not discovered in the 180day period

Output: holding fiveyear limitation period in 28 usc 2462 runs from date of predicate violation not from date of administrative assessment of sanction

Input: Consider Input: was not bound by this ruling when he rendered this decision in 1999 because SSR 00-4p was not effective until December 2000. Perhaps as a result, Money mentions SSR 00-4p on appeal but concedes that we do not need to apply it here. She argues persuasively that this court has endorsed reconciling conflicts between VEs' testimony and the DOT definitions even in claims not governed by SSR 00-4p. See Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 126-27 (3d Cir.2002). We do not need to decide this question, though, because the district court's decision to affirm stands even if such reconciliation was needed. Money apparently did not raise the first issue regarding the error in step four to the district court, and it is therefore waived. See Gass v. V.I. Telephone Corp., 311 F.3d 237, 246 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Looking at this issue on the merits, this
Holding statements: (A) holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court (B) holding issues not raised before local agency are waived (C) holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal (D) holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal (E) holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal
Output: holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court