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: for relief under § 3582(c). Nor is Brown entitled to pursue his claims through § 2241. A prisoner may proceed under § 2241 if § 2255 would be “inadequate of ineffective.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir.2002) (per curiam). We have held that § 2255’s “safety valve” applies only in rare circumstances, such as when an intervening change in the statute under which the petitioner was convicted renders the petitioner’s conduct non-criminal. See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997). Brown has not satisfied that standard here, as he makes no allegation that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, but instead asserts only that he is “innocent” of being a career offender. See Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120-21 (<HOLDING>). Brown must obtain a certificate of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prisoners challenge to his sentencing enhancement under  841 and 846 was not cognizable under  2241 (B) holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor (C) holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction (D) holding that dorsainvil did not permit petitioner to challenge sentence via  2241 based on intervening change in sentencing law (E) holding challenge to armedcareercriminal enhancement improper under  2241
Example Output: holding that prisoners challenge to his sentencing enhancement under  841 and 846 was not cognizable under  2241

Example Input: victim’s undisputed injuries, this court held that the statute required proof that the bodily injury was a foreseeable, rather than intentional, result of the rights-viólating conduct. Woodlee, 136 F.3d at 1405. At no point did this court even consider the possibility that the statute might not require proof of foreseeability at all, i.e., that the statute, imposed strict liability .on a defendant for bodily .injury resulting from his conduct. Because there is no logical distinction between the statutory language at issue in Woodlee and the language of § 841(b)(1)(E) that we are now tasked with interpreting, I believe that we are bound by Woodlee to interpret § 841(b)(1)(E) as incorporating a proximate cause requirement. See United States v. Ensminger, 174 F.3d 1143, (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). To conclude otherwise creates an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel (B) holding that a panel may not reconsider issues decided earlier in the same case by the en banc court (C) holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court (D) holding that only intervening law from the supreme court or this court sitting en banc can overrule a prior panel decision (E) holding that we are bound by prior panel opinions until they are overruled or abrogated by the supreme court or this court sitting en banc
Example Output: holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel

Example Input: methodologies in rendering his expert opinions, and unreliably applied his principles and methodologies to the facts and data on which he relies. It specifically argues that Dr. Bailie’s opinions are not supported by the scientific evidence provided in the articles he reviewed. As stated above, the Court finds sufficient support for Dr. Bailie’s opinions through the literature and his clinical experience. 19 . The Court notes that this motion in part repeats challenges to the medical literature that the Court has already addressed. 20 . See, e.g., Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786 ("[A]n expert is permitted wide latitude to offer opinions, including those that are not based on firsthand knowledge or observation"); Sementilli v. Trinidad Corp., 155 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 21 . Woo Young also argues that Dr. Parisian 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that while a testifying expert may rely upon facts or data made known to the expert before the hearing and even may rely upon opinions if reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field the ipse dixit of that reliance does not make those facts data or opinions true particularly where  they are derived largely from hearsay (B) holding that due process is violated if evidence of prior bad acts goes only to character and there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from it internal quotation marks omitted (C) holding that a foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights under the due process clause or otherwise internal quotation marks omitted (D) holding that an expert may base his or her opinions and inferences on facts andor data perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing internal quotation marks omitted (E) holding that trial counsels performance was not deficient for failing to give a mental health expert additional information because the expert testified at the evidentiary hearing that the collateral data would not have changed his testimony
Example Output:
recognizing that while a testifying expert may rely upon facts or data made known to the expert before the hearing and even may rely upon opinions if reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field the ipse dixit of that reliance does not make those facts data or opinions true particularly where  they are derived largely from hearsay