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:
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 Output:
holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error


Ex Input:
“multiple sentences for multiple crimes arising out of a single behavioral incident if: (1) the crimes affect multiple victims; and (2) multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” State v. Skipintheday, 717 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Minn.2006) (citations omitted). Both requirements are met here. The district court convicted and sentenced Wallace for two distinct crimes committed upon two distinct victims: once for attempting to rape R.L. and once for stabbing and killing Kenneth Williams. And Wallace does not argue, nor have we found any legal basis to conclude, that the multiple sentences imposed by the district court in this case unfairly exaggerate the criminality of his conduct. See, e.g., State v. Marquardt, 294 N.W.2d 849, 850-51 (Minn.1980) (<HOLDING>). In fact, we squarely rejected the precise 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts (B) holding that the district court did not err by sentencing a defendant to consecutive prison terms for seconddegree manslaughter and aggravated assault committed against two separate victims because the multiple sentences did not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendants conduct (C) holding that trial court did not err (D) holding in assault and involun tary manslaughter case that district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences based on finding of whether multiple counts involved the same harm (E) holding that separate sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and with intent to rob were barred

Ex Output:
holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts


Ex Input:
he was charged with violating only §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, not with violating § 841(b). This argument is patently meritless. Subsection 841(b) does not state a substantive offense, but simply establishes the penalties to be imposed upon conviction for a substantive offense. Thus, once the cotut properly exercised its jurisdiction to convict Pinkley of offenses under §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, it properly sentenced him according to statute. Pinkley’s reliance upon the recent decision in United States v. Buckland, 259 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2001), that § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B) is unconstitutional is unavailing. This court has rejected the same facial constitutional challenge to § 841(b) presented in Buck-land. United States v. Talley, 15 Fed. Appx. 215, 218 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished table decision) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in order to satisfy due process findings made at sentencing need only be based upon a preponderance of the evidence (B) recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings (C) holding that objections are required to challenge magistrate judges findings as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings (D) holding that it is the commissioners findings of fact to the extent they modify or replace the administrative law judges findings that are relevant on appeal (E) holding that  841b is facially constitutional because congress did not specify that only judges may make the findings required by  841b or that those findings must be made by a preponderance of the evidence  

Ex Output:

holding that in order to satisfy due process findings made at sentencing need only be based upon a preponderance of the evidence