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.

individual has breached a duty of reasonable care. Bolick v. Sunbird Airlines, Inc., 96 N.C. App. 443, 386 S.E.2d 76 (1989), aff'd, 327 N.C. 464, 396 S.E.2d 323 (1990). Sudden emergency does not change or reduce the standard of reasonable care. It is simply one of the factors to be considered in determining whether a person acted reasonably under the circumstances. Id. The sudden emergency doctrine permits the court to call to the attention of the jury that an emergency faced by the actor may influence its determination of whether specific conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. The doctrine of sudden emergency is not a legal defense which operates to bar an action. Id. But cf. Hinson v. Brown, 80 N.C. App. 661, 343 S.E.2d 284, rev. denied, 318 N.C. 282, 348 S.E.2d 138 (1986) (<HOLDING>). External forces that have been found to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court erred by instructing jury regarding sudden emergency (B) holding that sudden emergency is an affirmative defense which must be specifically plead (C) recognizing that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense a party must plead and prove (D) holding that a claim of exemption is an affirmative defense which must be specifically pleaded (E) holding that to avoid an affirmative defense  a plaintiff must plead specifically matters of affirmative avoidance pursuant to rule 5508
holding that trial court erred by instructing jury regarding sudden emergency

found it “difficult to maintain on a priori grounds that sex is physically dangerous” to every potential victim under the statute. Id. at 299. The First Circuit examined a similar statute-punishing a person over the age of 18 who engages in sexual intercourse with a person between 14 and 16-in United States v. Sacko, 178 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1999). The court determined that statutory rape crimes fall within the exception to the categorical approach because they “cover[ ] conduct both inside and outside the ‘violent felony’ sphere.” Id. at 4-5. We agree with the First and the Seventh Circuits that statutory rape statutes that include more mature victims and do not contain aggravating factors are not subject to the strict categorical approach articulated in Taylor. See Seaton, 45 F.3d at 111 (<HOLDING>). Thus, this case should be remanded for the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins (B) holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc  16 (C) holding that if a crime is broadly defined the court can look beyond the elements of the crime (D) holding that once the statute is found to be divisible the court must look to the charging papers and judgment of conviction to determine if the actual crime of which defendant was convicted was a crime of violence but emphasizing that the court is not to examine the particular facts underlying the conviction (E) holding that conviction of a crime requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime
holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins

Substantial compliance with the requirements for immigrant status as a conditional permanent resident, even if true, cannot excuse plaintiffs failure to maintain a full course of study pursuant to his student status. The intent for status as a conditional permanent resident and as a non-immigrant student are mutually exclusive; the former encompasses a desire to permanently remain in the United States while the latter does not. Moreover, the two sets of requirements are separate and independent. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 245 with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f). Compliance with the requirements for being a conditional permanent resident does not constitute substantial compliance with the requirements for being a non-immigrant student. See, e.g., Ghajar v. I.N.S., 652 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Here, plaintiff violated specific regulations 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for maintaining nonimmigrant student status under 8 cfr  2142f does not constitute substantial compliance with the requirements for obtaining an extension of stay under 8 cfr  2141c (B) recognizing that when the employer had failed to comply with the reporting requirements of 29 cfr  5162 an order requiring prospective compliance was proper but that additional sanctions for the past violation were not necessary (C) holding that substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of sdcl 3212 and 3 (D) holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient (E) holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for exempting a lessors personal property from a lien is not enough

recognizing that when the employer had failed to comply with the reporting requirements of 29 cfr  5162 an order requiring prospective compliance was proper but that additional sanctions for the past violation were not necessary

