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.

[Q]: its discretion by modifying the timesharing agreement without evidence that the welfare of the minor child would be promoted by returning him to his former school in Lake County and changing the timesharing arrangement to have the father assume the primary timesharing responsibilities. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2014); Holland v. Holland, 140 So.3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Dobbins v. Dobbins, 584 So.2d 1113, 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing. On remand, the court shall take evidence and use the best interests of the child standard to determine if modification is in the child’s best interests in light of the parties’ inability to agree which school the minor child will attend. See, e.g., Watt v. Watt, 966 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Once that determination is made, the trial 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional   3583e2 modification (B) holding that a hearing is required when a modification of parenting time would change the established custodial environment (C) holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody (D) holding that a custodial parents move to a foreign state without more is not a substantial change of circumstances that would support a modification of custody (E) holding that parties inability to agree on which private high school child would attend constituted substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of parenting plan
[A]: holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional   3583e2 modification


[Q]: court’s credibility determinations “unless the court credited testimony that was essentially unbelievable as a matter of law,” United States v. Smith, 308 F.3d 726, 746 (7th Cir.2002). There is no clear error in the district court’s decision to credit the presentence investigation report and Officer Morrissey’s sworn testimony over the unsworn, hearsay statement of the defendant. See United States v. Torres-Ramirez, 213 F.3d 978, 980-81 (7th Cir.2000) (‘When the sentence rests on testimony under oath ... it is enough that the judge believe the witness — unless the testimony is illogical or contradicted by documents or other physical evidence, making it clearly erroneous to accept the witness’s version of events.”); United States v. Krankel, 164 F.3d 1046, 1054-55 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Campbell directs us to no inconsistencies in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error (B) holding that where defendant did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute presentence report district court  was free to adopt facts in psi without further inquiry (C) holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report (D) holding that bald unsupported assertions by the defendant cannot refute presentence investigation report (E) holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report
[A]: holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error


[Q]: the murder of Captain Azote. It is perhaps true that Adekpe’s story might be more plausible if the letters had confirmed details of these events. (On the other hand, as Adekpe observes, it might be suspicious for a letter to without solicitation recount stories that are several years old and with which the recipient is more familiar than the writer.) But while the IJ was correct to conclude that the letters did not “specifically corroborate” Adekpe’s testimony in that way, she ignored a way in which the letters might make Adekpe’s story more plausible without specifically corroborating its details: by revealing that the situation in Togo after his departure is consistent with the situation he says existed prior to his departure. See Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 507 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). It is undisputed that Togo frequently 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel (B) holding that a class of all high school female athletes could not be certified  even if the alleged conduct of the defendant school system was discriminatory  when some female athletes did not share the same goals or interests as the named female plaintiffs because those unnamed female athletes were satisfied with andor benefitted from the alleged discriminatory treatment (C) holding that a letter from an aliens mother stating that elders were asking when the alien would return to undergo female genital mutila tion corroborated the aliens story that she had been pressured to undergo female genital mutilation (D) holding that the applicant was entitled to asylum based on her fear that her daughter will be forced to undergo female genital mutilation because her fear of  being forced to witness the pain and suffering of her daughter is wellfounded (E) holding that an alien parent may not establish a derivative claim for asylum by pointing to potential hardship to the aliens united states citizen child in the event of the aliens deportation
[A]:
holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel


