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: 39:4-88(b), the mandate to drive within a single lane to the extent practicable applies, whether or not a deviation from that lane imposes a risk to another driver. The statute’s second clause addresses a related, but discrete, mandate of the Code. It requires a driver to ascertain the safety of switching lanes before conducting a lane change. N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b). Unlike the violation described in the first clause of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), the violation described in the second clause is avoided if a driver, in a roadway with multiple lanes traveling in the same direction, first determines that departure from a lane may be conducted safely. The Appellate Division’s limitation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b) to the violation identified in the statute’s second clause would render t .App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the courts of our sister states, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness (B) holding that tex transp code ann  545060a describes one offense (C) holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony (D) holding that an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime need not allege the elements of the latter offense (E) holding that the statute describes but one offense which can be committed by either or both of two methods
Example Output: holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness

Example Input: acts of sexual harassment by the plaintiffs co-workers, about which defendants’ supervisors neither knew nor should have known, does not give rise to a cognizable sexual harassment claim and will not revive an otherwise stale sexual harassment claim. See Doe v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 42 F.3d 439, 446 (7th Cir.1994) (“[Because no harassment event occurring during the violation period was ever brought to the attention of [the employer] while [the plaintiff] was still employed, there is no violation during the limitation period that can serve as the anchor for the earlier conduct.”). Additionally, the plaintiff cannot rely on the continuing violations doctrine, because there is no nexus between the conduct of the coworkers in 1994 and the earlier incidents going back to 1992. See Id. (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, there being no dispute as to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate some nexus between infringement and profits before apportionment can occur (B) holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment because she failed to show she was similarly situated to coworker to whom she compared herself (C) holding that the plaintiff could not rely on the continuing violations doctrine because she had failed to demonstrate a sufficiently close nexus between alleged touching incidents by a supervisor and the later conduct of fellow employees (D) holding that a constitutional claim against nongovernment entities only lies where there is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged action of the  entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the state itself (E) holding that plaintiff cook at a nursing home had sufficiently pled requisite public policy and a close fit where she alleged she was fired for expressing concerns that a fellow employee was contaminating the area where she was preparing food
Example Output: holding that plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate some nexus between infringement and profits before apportionment can occur

Example Input: of the due date.” Consent Motion at 1. As was made clear in Pioneer, however, “inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect.” 507 U.S. at 392, 113 S.Ct. 1489. See also Fox v. Am. Airlines, 389 F.3d 1291, 1294 (D.C.Cir.2004) (parties are “obligated to monitor the court’s docket”); Halmon v. Jones Lang Wootton USA, 355 F.Supp.2d 239, 244 (D.D.C.2005) (“Parties have an obligation to monitor the court’s docket and keep apprised of relevant deadlines.”). It is easy to see why this is so. If a simple mistake made by counsel were to excuse an untimely filing, “it [would be] hard to fathom the kind of neglect that we would not deem excusable.” Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 211 F.3d 457, 464 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). See also Spears v. City of Indianapolis, 74 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiff bears the burden of showing that delay was due to oversight inadvertence or excusable neglect (B) holding that the states failure to object to a late petition for appeal of a termination order granted by the trial court on the basis of excusable neglect constituted a waiver of the states right to contest excusable neglect on appeal to the court of appeals (C) holding that failure to accurately calculate the thirtyday appeal period is not excusable neglect (D) holding that the circuit judge did not have the authority to extend the thirtyday time limit for filing a notice of appeal (E) holding that the concept of excusable neglect could not be invoked to gloss over a failure to take minimum safeguards for determining that action is being taken
Example Output:
holding plaintiff bears the burden of showing that delay was due to oversight inadvertence or excusable neglect

