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.

Ex Input:
quantity function as elements by increasing the maximum penalty a defendant may receive, are they elements of an aggravated offense or are they sentencing factors with heightened due process requirements? See id. at 573, 575 (Hug, J., concurring) (disagreeing with the majority’s apparent conclusion that the penalty provisions of § 841(b) are not elements of the offense). The district court correctly interpreted Buckland as holding that drug type and quantity are not elements of the offense, but rather are material facts that must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Buckland opinion emphasized that the relevant inquiry is not whether a penalty provision is an element, but rather whether it exposes the defendant to a longer sentence than woul (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Minore, 292 F.3d 1109, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that sentencing judges have the discretion to reject any sentencing guideline but no judge is required to do so (B) holding jury is entitled to accept the states version of the facts and reject appellants version or reject any of the witnesses testimony (C) holding that biased on buckland we must reject valensias contention that the sentencing provisions of  841 create separate crimes (D) holding that under the crimes code conspiracy and the completed substantive offense are separate crimes (E) holding the crimes merge where the jury was not asked to determine whether two assaults occurredeventhough the evidence may have been sufficient to support separate crimes

Ex Output:
recognizing that sentencing judges have the discretion to reject any sentencing guideline but no judge is required to do so


Ex Input:
of finality which is essential to the operation of our criminal justice system.” Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 242, 110 S.Ct. 2822, 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990). Petitioner claims that Apprendi falls within the narrow scope of the second category of exceptions and is therefore applicable to his case retroactively. The Second Circuit has not yet addressed the question of whether Apprendi should be considered a “watershed rule,” falling within the Teague exceptions. However, every Circuit Court which has considered this question has held that Apprendi should not be applied retroactively on collateral review. United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 146 (4th Cir.2001); Jones v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1227, 1236 (9th Cir.2001); see, e.g., Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 687 (8th Cir.2001)(<HOLDING>); Browning v. United States, 241 F.3d 1262, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that petitioner was barred from bringing apprendi claim on second or successive motion to vacate because supreme court had not made apprendi retroactive to cases on collateral review (B) holding apprendi is not retroactive (C) holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review (D) holding that until the supreme court rules otherwise apprendi is not a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review  that was previously unavailable (E) holding that the apprendi decision is not applicable on collateral review

Ex Output:
holding apprendi is not retroactive


Ex Input:
the probable cause finding, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674. Here, there was an ex parte prewarrant hearing during which Officer McGrew testified that Flake was convicted of child molestation in 1991. That was an untrue statement. McGrew misrepresented the age of the victim by stating that she was a minor when she was actually over the age of majority. McGrew misrepresented the circumstances of the offense by stating that Flake had forced the victim into his vehicle when, in reality, she had been hitchhiking and entered the vehicle voluntarily. McGrew ultimately misrepre sented the type of conviction by stating that it was child molestation whe d States v. Chesher, 678 F.2d 1353, 1360-62 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). We also hold that McGrew’s misrepresentations 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the findings of reviewing physicians constituted substantial evidence in support of the secretarys decision to deny benefits (B) holding that an agents omission of evidence that was readily available to him constituted a substantial preliminary showing of recklessness (C) holding that recklessness not merely the violation of a city ordinance must be shown for assault with a firearm conviction (D) holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the record when an admission was available (E) holding that misdemeanor violation of carrying an unlicensed firearm was sufficient without a showing of recklessness or negligence for an involuntary manslaughter conviction

Ex Output:

holding that the findings of reviewing physicians constituted substantial evidence in support of the secretarys decision to deny benefits