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: § 924(c) conviction is invalid after Bailey and Bousley, it argues we are prohibited from reaching the merits of his claim because Abdullah did not present his Bailey/Bousley challenge on direct appeal or in the § 2255 proceedings below. Alternatively, the government argues the claim is barred by AEDPA’s one-year limitations period. We assume for purposes of this appeal that Abdullah did not procedurally default his Bailey claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal. Notwithstanding such an assumption, we conclude the claim is barred because Abdullah failed to adequately raise the issue before the district court in this § 2255 proceeding. Generally, a habeas claim cannot be raised by a petitioner for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Petty v. Card, 195 F.3d 399, 400 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 78, 148 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court (B) holding that the convention claim was procedurally defaulted (C) holding that court may address procedurally defaulted claim on the merits where it is more efficient to do so (D) holding that habeas claim not included in petition and never raised by petitioner before the district court as basis for habeas relief is procedurally defaulted (E) holding that an argument not raised before the district court is procedurally defaulted

Output: holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court


Input: Consider Input: State v. Gill, 47 N.J. 441, 444, 221 A.2d 521 (1966))); Twp. of Pennsauken v. Schad, 160 N.J. 156, 170, 733 A.2d 1159 (1999). Our construction of N.J.S.A 39:4-88(b) is thus consonant with established principles of statutory construction. | IV. Applying statutes that are identical or very similar to the statute before the Court, courts of other states have reached varying conclusions. Several decisions have construed analogous statutes to describe two offenses, as this Court construes N.J.S.A 39:4-88(b). See People v. Butler, 81 Cal.App.3d Supp. 6, 146 Cal.Rptr. 856, 857 (Cal.Ct.App.1978) (construing Cal. Veh.Code § 21658 to state “two affirmative duties placed upon the operator of a motor vehicle”); People v. Smith, 172 Ill.2d 289, 216 Ill.Dec. 658, 665 N.E.2d 1215, 1218 (1996) (<HOLDING>); State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657, 215 P.3d 601, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders (B) holding that plain language of 625 ill comp stat ann 511709 establishes two separate requirements for lane usage (C) holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning (D) holding that in context of motion for reconsideration or to reopen congress envisioned two separate timely petitions for review of two separate final orders (E) holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms

Output: holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders


Input: Consider Input: that the proportionality review in this case would not save the death penalty because reliance upon the allegedly unconstitutional aggravating circumstances was not cured on appeal. 4 . The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Cartwright’s sentence on January 7, 1985. Cartwright v. State, 695 P.2d at 548. Later that year Oklahoma modified its capital punishment statute to allow for resentencing in the event that a death penalty is set aside on appeal. Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 701.13(E)(2) (West Supp.1986). The Oklahoma court has held that this provision is not to be applied retroactively. Green v. State, 713 P.2d 1032, 1041 n. 4 (Okla.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 241, 93 L.Ed.2d 165 (1986). But see Brewer v. State, 718 P.2d 354, 365-66 (Okla.Crim.App.), (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 245, 93 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that kotecki limit applied retroactively (B) holding that the statute is mandatory (C) holding that a provision in the 1985 amend ments eliminating mandatory proportionality review is to be applied retroactively (D) holding the batson rule was not to be applied retroactively to a state conviction on federal habeas review (E) holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions


Output: holding that kotecki limit applied retroactively