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]: method (under § 3663) in favor of an incorrect method (under § 1593), the district court erred. Moreover, we hold that the district court’s error was “plain,” because the statutes are clear and because the government openly admitted that its proposed methodology derived from the wrong restitution statute. See United States v. Tuyet Thi-Bach Nguyen, 565 F.3d 668, 677 (9th Cir.2009) (“An error is plain when it is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious’ under the law.”). Finally, we hold that the error affected Defendants’ substantial rights and affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. The government did not present evidence — and the district court did not make findings — of the victims’ actual losses, as required by § 3663. See Bussell, 504 F.3d at 964 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Joyner, 201 F.3d 61, 81 (2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that restitution is proper under  2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses (B) holding that restitution is proper for victims losses that are directly caused by appellants conduct for which he was convicted (C) holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc  3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction (D) holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses  (E) holding that restitution in the full amount of each victims losses does not exceed the statutory maximum
[EX A]: holding that restitution is proper under  2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses

[EX Q]: Chief Judge: The appellant, Craig G. Falk, appeals from a July 8, 1996, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) decision denying his claim service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). As the appellant has limited his appeal to the denial of that claim, the Court deems the appellant to have abandoned his right to appeal with respect to the denial of entitlement to benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. Bucklinger v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 435, 436 (1993); see also Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32, 34-35 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Upon consideration of the pleadings of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal (B) holding that issues not presented in an appellants initial brief to the court need not be considered under this courts rules (C) holding that claims not raised in an appellants initial brief to our court are waived (D) holding that issues not raised in an appellants initial brief are deemed abandoned (E) holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief
[EX A]: holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal

[EX Q]: not include those UAs that did not produce a sample. Either , way, the record demonstrates that Casey's participation in the random UA testing program was minimal. 17 . See G.C., 67 P.3d at 651. 18 . AS 47.10.088(a)(2); Sherman B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 290 P.3d 421, 431 (Alaska 2012). 19 . AS 47.10.088(b). 20 . Sherry R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 74 P.3d 896, 903 (Alaska 2003). 21 . We also note that the treatment assessor's initial assessment of Casey was based exclusively on information which Casey provided. Thus, to the extent the provider erroneously concluded that Casey did not need treatment, this error was presumably caused Office of Children's Servs., 212 P.3d 756, 765 (Alaska 2009) (<HOLDING>). 32 . Casey notes that OCS "only obtained one 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the juvenile court could have concluded that dhr had made reasonable efforts to reunite the father with the child (B) holding that dhr properly ended reunification efforts after eight months when previous reunification efforts had failed and the record indicated that further efforts would be unavailing (C) holding the evidence was sufficient to support termination under subsection n when after release from prison the defendant was advised of visitation but only visited with his children twice and made no further efforts to be involved with them and a case worker testified that all reasonable efforts were made to return the children to the parents (D) holding that even under the higher active efforts burden required in indian child welfare act icwa cases the fact that ocs failed to make efforts during three of the 26 months it was involved in the case was not determinative (E) holding that ocs made active efforts as required by icwa even where ocss efforts temporarily declined when father was incarcerated
[EX A]:
holding that the juvenile court could have concluded that dhr had made reasonable efforts to reunite the father with the child