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.

of whether the images on the site constituted child pornography, the receipt shows Shiver’s familiarity with making commercial transactions for pornographic images on the Internet. The government also presented evidence specifically showing that the image of one child in particular had been produced in North Carolina. That the latter image ended up on Shiver’s computer in Florida strongly suggests that it traveled in interstate commerce. We likewise reject Shiver’s contention that the government’s evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that he “knowingly possessed” the images of child pornography on his computer. Although we have interpreted the meaning of “knowing possession” in other contexts, see, e.g., United States v. Glover, 431 F.3d 744, 748 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted), we have not yet had 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the phrase possession or custody in  5225b requires actual and not merely constructive possession (B) holding in a similar factual situation that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction because it had no actual or constructive possession of the letters of credit involved (C) recognizing theory of constructive possession (D) holding that constructive possession need not be exclusive but may be shared by others (E) holding that k no wing possession can be demonstrated by proof of either actual or constructive possession
holding that the phrase possession or custody in  5225b requires actual and not merely constructive possession

speech." The categorical distinction is particularly difficult to apply to statutes that proscribe threats. Generally, threats involve words, or "speech.” Moreover, in the R.A.V. case itself, the Court implicitly suggested that threats did not fall within its exception for statutes "directed at conduct.” See R.A.V., — U.S. at --, 112 S.Ct. at 2546 (describing 18 U.S.C. § 871, which proscribes threats against the President, as fully subject to its general rule). Nonetheless, as I discuss below, at least one panel in this circuit has held that a civil rights statute selectively proscribing threats of force is “directed at conduct” and thus not subject to the R.A.V. general rule. Hayward, 6 F.3d at 1251 (42 U.S.C. § 3631, as applied to a cross-burning incident); cf. J.H.H., 22 F.3d at 826 (<HOLDING>); but cf. United States v. Lee, 6 F.3d 1297, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc  241 (B) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 (C) holding that 18 usc  245 a statute passed on the same day as 42 usc  3631 and for similar purposes constituted a valid enactment under congress thirteenth amendment authority as applied to racially motivated interference with federallyprotected rights (D) holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 (E) holding that 18 usc  241 and 42 usc  3631 fall within a separate exception to rav
holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc  241

at 73. The BIA’s finding that Dong was not credible is supported by substantial evidence. There is at least one material inconsistency between Dong’s and his wife’s account of his family’s persecution at the hands of the family planning officials. Dong testified on direct examination that he did not witness he family planning officials taking his wife from their home for a forced abortion. In a letter to the IJ, Dong’s wife stated that her husband had been home and had been beaten by the family planning officials. This inconsistency is directly related to Dong’s claim of persecution, and therefore is a “specific, cogent” reason that bears a “legitimate nexus” to the BIA’s conclusion that Dong was not credible in his description of his family’s persecution. See Zhang, 386 F.3d at 77-78 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Dong failed to carry his burden 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that any alleged inconsistencies in dates that reveal nothing about a petitioners credibility cannot form the basis of an adverse credibility finding (B) holding the bias decision upholding the ijs finding of removability  was the final order (C) holding that ijs and bias finding of applicants lack of credibility was substantially supported by the inconsistencies regarding the date of spouses alleged sterilization (D) holding that in light of an applicants omission of various relevant facts from his asylum application substantial evidence supported the ijs adverse credibility determination (E) holding that the ijs or bias credibility determinations are not questioned if they are substantially reasonable

holding that any alleged inconsistencies in dates that reveal nothing about a petitioners credibility cannot form the basis of an adverse credibility finding