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.

include the element that elevates the crime to a higher level.” As we noted in State v. Bean, 153 N.H. 380 (2006), “[i]n Glanville, the State, although not required to do so under Johnson, attempted to charge the defendant with a specific variant of the crime allegedly attempted, but failed to accurately set forth that variant in the indictment.” Bean, 153 N.H. at 384; see Johnson, 144 N.H. at 178. Indeed, Glanville recognized that all that was required “[t]o charge the defendant with attempted armed robbery, class A felony, [was for] the indictment ... to allege that the defendant (1) with a purpose to commit armed robbery, (2) committed acts constituting a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.” Glanville, 145 N.H. at 634 (emphasis added); cf. Casanova, 164 N.H. at 566 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the indictment in this case 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because statutory variants of an underlying crime are not elements of an attempt to commit the underlying crime jurors are not required to unanimously find which specific statutory variant the defendant intended to commit it is sufficient that they unanimously conclude that the defendant intended to commit any of the applicable statutory variants (B) holding that an employer who caused his agent to commit a crime in another county was deemed to have been personally present where the crime occurred (C) holding that firstdegree murder is one crime although the defendant can commit the crime in several ways (D) recognizing that entrapment is a statutory defense rooted in the notion that congress could not have intended to criminally punish those who commit elements of crime but are induced by the government to commit the acts and that outrageous conduct defense is rooted in constitutional law (E) holding that an individual cannot attempt to commit murder of the second or third degree because the crime of attempt is a specific intent crime and an attempt to commit second or third degree murder would require proof that the individual intended to perpetrate an unintentional killing which is logically impossible
holding that an employer who caused his agent to commit a crime in another county was deemed to have been personally present where the crime occurred

of not more than 15 years, and it similarly concluded as follows: If a sentence under this paragraph provides for imprisonment, the sentence shall include a special parole term of not less than three years in addition to such term of imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1). The language of §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 960(b)(1) thus squarely contradicts Walberg’s contention, for each stated that the special parole term shall be a minimum of a certain number of “years in addition to [the] term of imprisonment.” Accord United States v. Mack, 509 F.2d 615, 616 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 916, 95 S.Ct. 1578, 43 L.Ed.2d 783 (1975); Llerena v. United States, 508 F.2d 78, 82 (5th Cir.1975). Cf. Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 388, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 2252, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The legislative history of the Act and the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding conviction for cce murder 21 usc  848e1 is a separate offense from a cce 21 usc  848c (B) holding that no special parole term was authorized for a conviction for conspiracy in violation of 21 usc  846 which mentioned only fine and imprisonment and not special parole and emphazing the in addition to language of 21 usc  841b1b (C) holding that in order for a trial court to determine which of the three graduated penalty subsections of 21 usc  841b applies to defendants convicted of a  846 drug conspiracy the jury must be instructed to determine the threshold quantity of drugs attributable to each conspiracy defendant on trial (D) holding that the elements of a drug conspiracy under 21 usc  846 do include an overt act requirement (E) holding lopez was inapplicable to the language prior conviction for a felony drug offense in 21 usc  841b1a because felony drug offense was defined in 21 usc  80244 as an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the united states or of a state
holding conviction for cce murder 21 usc  848e1 is a separate offense from a cce 21 usc  848c

discs to also take a license to Lagadec, an allegedly-nonessential Sony patent. Tying arrangements have a long history in both the patent misuse and antitrust contexts. Much of the Supreme Court’s early patent misuse doctrine was developed in cases involving a challenge to some form of tying arrangement. In Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 490-91, 62 S.Ct. 402, 86 L.Ed. 363 (1942), for example, the Court held that a tying arrangement where the patent license was conditioned upon the purchase of a separate, staple product amounted to patent misuse, because in such a case “the patent is used as a means of restraining competition with the patentee’s sale of an unpatented product.” Id. at 493, 62 S.Ct. 402; see also III. Tool Works, 547 U.S. at 45-46, 126 S.Ct. 1281 (<HOLDING>). Likewise, the early antitrust cases found 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an attorneys negligence alone does not qualify for such relief (B) holding that a patent alone does not confer market power necessary to show unlawful tying (C) holding that the mere delivery of documents  does not confer jurisdiction (D) holding that the flsa does not confer jurisdiction over ambulance services (E) holding that the due process clause does not generally confer affirmative rights to governmental aid even where such aid may be necessary to secure life

holding that an attorneys negligence alone does not qualify for such relief