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: 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

A: holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins
****
Q: the effect that the code-fendant’s confession must be disregarded in determining the defendant’s guilt or innocence is ineffective and cannot overcome the prejudicial effect of the incriminating statement on the jury. Id. at 124, 88 S.Ct. 1620. As such, the trial court’s curative instruction in the instant case was insufficient to cure the erroneous admission of Hertz’s statement to Hathcock. Nonetheless, this Court has also recognized that a Bruton violation does not automatically require reversal of an otherwise valid conviction but, rather, is subject to a harmless error analysis. See Farina v. State, 679 So.2d 1151, 1155 (Fla.1996) (citing Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284, (1969)); see also Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312, 1322 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. State, 699 So.2d 629, 644-45 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that confrontation clause violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in part because it concerned the limitation of crossexamination of the prosecutions key witness (B) holding that the sixth amendment confrontation clause violation in that case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore did not require the conviction to be overturned (C) holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error (D) holding confrontation clause violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and thus upholding firstdegree murder conviction (E) holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative

A: holding that confrontation clause violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in part because it concerned the limitation of crossexamination of the prosecutions key witness
****
Q: consent to remove board, reduce size of board, and elect new directors); Kalageorgi v. Victor Kamkin, Inc., 750 A.2d 531, 536 (Del.Ch.1999) (describing effort by written consent to remove directors and then reduce size of board); AGR Halifax Fund, Inc. v. Fiscina, 743 A.2d 1188, 1191 (Del.Ch.1999) (describing effort by writte , 630 (Del.Ch.1970) ("I am of the opinion that plaintiff, having no vested right in her office, has been properly removed as a director. ..."). 4 . For more recent Delaware decisions articulating this principle, see Nevins v. Bryan, 885 A.2d 233, 252 n. 70 (Del.Ch.2005) ("Delaware law does not permit directors to remove other directors.”), aff'd, 884 A.2d 512 (Del.2005); Solstice Capital II, Ltd. Partnership v. Ritz, 2004 WL 765939, at *1 (Del.Ch. Apr. 6, 2004) (<HOLDING>); Stroud, 585 A.2d at 1309 ("Generally, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing (B) holding that the attempt to remove  a director by written consent of the board is invalid (C) holding that a search exceeded the scope of the initial oral consent and was not validated by a subsequent written consent an allegedly consensual seizure must stand or fall on the basis of the consent preexisting the seizure (D) holding that allegation that company paid a director 50000 in consulting fees was not enough to demonstrate that the director lacked independence as plaintiffs had failed to allege that 50000 was material to the director (E) holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile

A:
recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing
****