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.

Example Input: 593, 598 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1, 135 L.Ed.2d 1098 (1996), and of mixed questions of law and fact, see Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). However, the state court's factual findings underlying those determinations are presumed to be correct and binding, as long as they were made after a full, fair, and adequate hearing on the merits. See 28 U.S.C.A. 2254(d) (West 1994) (pre-AED-PA); see also Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546-47, 101 S.Ct. 764, 768-69, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). The habeas petitioner bears the burden of es ing that the findings of the trial court on discriminatory intent in Batson challenge are reviewed for clear error); Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526, 534, 99 S.Ct. 2971, 2977, 61 L.Ed.2d 720 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. Plaster, 57 F.3d 417, 421 (4th
Holding statements: (A) holding that the intent to discriminate under batson is a pure issue of fact subject to review under a deferential standard (B) holding that the question of causation in a prima facie case of retaliation brought under general statutes 46a60 is factual in nature and thereby subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review (C) holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review (D) holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard (E) holding that a finding of accommodation is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review instead of under a de novo standard
Example Output: holding that the intent to discriminate under batson is a pure issue of fact subject to review under a deferential standard

Example Input: 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
Example Output: 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

Example Input: 87 (2000). Roberts now cites to the Cloird opinion for the proposition that it is the circuit court, not this court, who considers the diligence issue in the first instance. While it is true that we have directed circuit courts to examine the issue of diligence, we have done so only in those cases where we have granted the petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court. This court has itself examined the diligence requirement and denied petitions where it was evident that a petitioner failed to proceed diligently. See, e.g., Echols, 354 Ark. 414, 125 S.W.3d 153. Even though it was a death-penalty case, this court denied his petition for coram nobis relief where we determined that he had not acted diligently. See also Scott v. State, 2010 Ark. 363, 2010 WL 3796227 (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we will address the issue of whether
Holding statements: (A) holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner (B) holding that a coram nobis petition remained pending until the court of appeals denied petitioners application for leave to appeal the appellate divisions denial of his petition (C) holding same for writ of error coram nobis (D) holding that in the absence of a valid excuse for delay a coram nobis petition is subject to denial (E) recognizing that under the common law applications for writs of error coram nobis were civil in character
Example Output:
holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner