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 Q]: [u]nder [28 U.S.C.] § 2254(d)(l)’s ‘unreasonable application’ clause, ... a federal habeas [corpus] court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable. Id. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Applying these standards to the present case, the court’s inquiry must be whether the uit Court of Appeals case for the proposition that the application of a statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms does not violate the ex post facto clause because it is a protective measure and does not impose any new or different punishment. See United States v. O’Neal (“O’Neal”), 180 F.3d 115, 124-25 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (criticizing Davis). Additionally, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state statutory bans against employment of convicted felons in certain jobs did not impose punishment under ex post facto clause (B) holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause (C) holding north carolina felony firearms act did not violate the ex post facto clause because it was a measured public safety provision and its applicability to previously convicted felons was eminently reasonable (D) holding that the ex post facto clause did not apply because the civil contempt citation was not punitive (E) holding that the alaska sex offender registration act did not violate the ex post facto clause
[EX A]: holding that state statutory bans against employment of convicted felons in certain jobs did not impose punishment under ex post facto clause

[EX Q]: CURIAM: Michael Disch appeals his convictions for mailing threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c), and making false statements to an FBI agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Disch argues that the district court judge was required to recuse himself sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b). Ordinarily, we review a judge’s decision not to recuse himself under § 455(a) and § 455(b) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir.1999); see also Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1527-28 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). However, when a defendant fails to seek 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error (B) holding that a  455b violation is subject to harmless error review (C) holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error (D) holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review (E) holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis
[EX A]: holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error

[EX Q]: runoff “caused” the response costs incurred. While defendants have proffered evidence demonstrating that lead was inherent in the tar-like material, and that the lead that was inherent was alone sufficient to justify the removal effort, this does not preclude a finding that lead that entered the property through the storm drain system might also have provided a basis for remediation. See Boeing, supra, 207 F.3d at 1185. The court is mindful of the Ninth Circuit’s formulation of the causation standard in Boeing — i.e., that there must be a showing that “either polluter’s conduct would have caused the same response cost to be incurred in the same amount, and [that] the[ir] conduct was of substantially equal blameworthiness.” Id. See also Browning-Ferris Industries, supra, 195 F.3d at 958 (<HOLDING>). Seemingly, other courts have not required a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that parties liable for at least a portion of the costs of remediating a hazardous site are limited to the contribution scheme under section 9613f of cercla (B) holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious (C) holding that response costs can be necessary even though the agency that required cleanup never approved the response actions taken (D) holding that a portion of plaintiffs response costs should be allocated to a defendant whose pollution was serious enough  to require that the site be cleaned up (E) holding that investigatory costs are considered costs of response under cercla
[EX A]:
holding that parties liable for at least a portion of the costs of remediating a hazardous site are limited to the contribution scheme under section 9613f of cercla